Preamble

The House met a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Tynemouth Water Charges) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PROVINCE OF BERAR.

Mr. WARDLAW MILNE: 1.
asked the Tinder-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a letter from His Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad to the Viceroy of India setting forth a claim to the Province of Berar; and whether he can make any statement of the views of the Government and the Government of India in the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the Nizam of Hyderabad's letter to the Viceroy of India laying claim to the Province of Berar; whether he can give any further information on this subject; and whether he will ensure that due weight will be given to the wishes of the inhabitants of Berar in this matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): I have seen a copy of the letter referred to. The letter itself is understood to be under consideration by the Government of India, and I am not at present in a position to make any
further statement on the subject. The representations contained in the letter cannot, of course, be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State unless and until they are received, in the constitutional manner, through the Government of India. An assurance has already been given that no steps in the matter will in any case be taken without giving to the people of Berar a full opportunity of expressing their wishes.

Mr. MILNE: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the reason why this matter has only now been raised?

Mr. RICHARDS: I must ask for notice of that question.

RAILWAY MATERIAL (ORDERS).

Lieut.- Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Indian Stores Department have accepted the tender of a German firm from Hanover for the supply of locomotives for the State-managed railways in India; and whether, in view of the great unemployment that exists to-day in the iron and steel trades in this country, he will take steps, either by amending the East India Loans Act or by other measures, to ensure that contracts for the Indian State railways are placed with British firms?

Mr. HANNON: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of India has placed an order for five locomotives required for the Indian State railways with a German firm; whether, seeing that a tender received from a British firm was very slightly higher than that of its foreign competitor, and in view of the pressing necessity for the provision of work for British workmen, he proposes to adopt measures to ensure that such orders may in future be placed in this country?

Sir GRATTAN DOYLE: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian State railways are placing, or have placed, an order for five tank locomotives with a German firm, the Hannoversche Maschinenbau Aktion-Gesellschaft; and if he will take steps to amend the Indians Loan Act so as to prevent the occurrence of such action in future?

Mr. RICHARDS: As the House is aware, the purchase of stores for the Indian Government is no longer undertaken by the India Office. Such purchases are made by the High Commissioner for India, who is directly responsible to the Government of India, and in accordance with Resolutions adopted by both Chambers of the Indian Legislature and accepted by the Government of India these purchases are, in the interests of the Indian taxpayer, made in the best market. That is to say, the High Commissioner, under his instructions follows the ordinary business principle of accepting the lowest satisfactory tender, regard being paid to quality, reliability, inspection facilities and promptness of 'delivery. I have ascertained from the High Commissioner that an order for five locomotives has recently been placed with a German firm, the lowest British tender being about 25 per cent. higher than that accepted. I am also informed that as a matter of fact British manufacturers are, under the competitive conditions laid down, able to secure the great bulk of the orders placed. My Noble Friend does not consider that it would be equitable to limit the discretion of the Government of India in this matter either by an amendment of the East India Loans Act or otherwise.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that last Session, when the East India Loans Act was passed, the Noble Lord opposite (Earl Winterton) successfully resisted on behalf of the late Government an Amendment such as is suggested in the question?

Mr. RICHARDS: Yes, I am aware of that.

Mr. REMER: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that large orders are being placed by the Indian railways on the Continent; whether these purchases are being made out of loans guaranteed by the British Government designed to relieve our unemployed; and whether he will take powers to insert in all future loans a condition to our guarantee that purchases must be given to British contractors?

Mr. RICHARDS: No, Sir. During the last two years only a very small proportion of the orders for material required
by the Indian State Railways has been placed on the Continent. As regards the second part of the question, no purchase of Indian railway material by the Government of India is being made from the proceeds of loans guaranteed by His Majesty's Government. The third part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. REMER: What is the "small proportion" to which the hon. Gentleman refers?

Mr. RICHARDS: I believe that during last year about 97 per cent. of the orders were placed with British contractors.

Mr. REMER: In view of the unsatisfactory answer that has been given, I beg to give notice that I will refer to the matter on the Adjournment to-morrow night.

POLICE ADMINISTRATION.

Colonel Sir CHARLES PATE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the Annual Police Administration Reports of the various Indian provinces lately published, in which the reductions forced upon the police department and the want of proper detective training schools are shown to have resulted in a great increase of crime; and if he can state what steps are being taken to restore the Indian police forces to their former strength and to give them adequate pay?

Mr. RICHARDS: The latest reports received show that the hon. and gallant Member is generalising too widely from one or two facts. There was a general decrease in crime (in spite of a rise of crimes of violence in certain provinces), while the expenditure on police increased in most provinces, and the strength of the force had been on the whole maintained or increased. There have been subsequent reductions in Bengal, for instance, as the result of a retrenchment inquiry, and in the Punjab by the disbanding of additional police employed in 1922 for temporary purposes. And, though it is the case that financial stringency has retarded the introduction of some reforms, considerable increases of pay and allowances have been granted to the police generally in recent years, and it is clear that the Governments concerned are devoting to this branch of administration full attention, and as large funds as their resources permit.

Sir C. YATE: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the police in India are adequately paid?

Mr. RICHARDS: I should like to have notice of that question.

SEDITIOUS AGITATION (PENSIONERS).

Sir C. YATE: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the recent announcement by the Government of India on the subject of the forfeiture of pensions by military pensioners engaged in seditious agitation applies equally to civil pensioners; and, if not, what are the penalties imposed upon the latter.

Mr. RICHARDS: The particular announcement does not apply to ordinary civil pensioners. The rule as to them is contained in article 351 of the Civil Service Regulations, of which I will furnish the hon. and gallant Member with a copy.

MARRIED BRITISH OFFICERS AND MEN (PAY).

Sir C. YATE: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that it has been computed that married British service officers, as well as married, quarter-masters, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, with children, are worse off in India than at home to approximately the following extent, viz., a married captain £22 per annum, a married lieutenant of over seven years' service £63 per annum, and under seven years' service £68 per annum; that married quarter-masters, whose pay depends on length of service as such, lose by service in India in every grade, and married warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and men lose, respectively, about £49 14s., £20 12s. 6d., and £16 2s. 6d. per annum; and whether he will state what steps it is proposed to take to remedy the discontent brought about by this reduction of pay during service abroad in India.?

Mr. RICHARDS: The pay of the British Army, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, comes up for revision in July of this year, and full consideration will then be given to the position of married personnel of all ranks of the British Service in India. If the hon. and gallant Member will give me details of the data on which he founds the figures
in his question, I shall be glad to look into them, and communicate the result to him.

MOPLAH REBELLION (PRISONERS).

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many Moplah prisoners have been transported to the Andaman Islands, and are now detained there; whether they are treated as ordinary criminals; and whe5her any Moplah women and children are resident in the penal settlement?

Mr. RICHARDS: In July last there were in all 1,235 Moplahs in the Andamans—all in Port Blair. Seventy-two were in the cellular jail, 12 in the adolescent gang, 40 agriculturists and self-supporters, and the rest in convict barracks. There were no special arrangements for segrating Moplahs from association with other convicts. They were treated like others, except that the initial period of cellular confinement was frequently shortened. The Government are willing to settle any who desire to stay, with or without their families; with this object agricultural and other tickets are issued freely, and the families of all who ask for them are sent to the islands at Government expense. Up to July, one family—a wife and four children—had been settled, and the settlement of three more was expected shortly.

Mr. SIMPSON: What has happened since July last?

Mr. RICHARDS: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. SIMPSON: Will the hon. Gentleman get particulars and bring the information up to date?

Mr. RICHARDS: I will, certainly.

PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION.

Mr. SIMPSON: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the First Report of the Public Services Commission on India is likely to be published?

Mr. RICHARDS: I am not in a position at present to add anything to the answer given by my predecessor to the hon. Member's question on this subject on 21st January. The Commission is still taking evidence.

Mr. SIMPSON: Is the Commission inquiring into the covenanted service as well as the uncovenanted service?

Mr. RICHARDS: I must ask for notice of that question.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Leader of the House the desirability of having a Debate in the House on the Report of the Commission as soon as it is published?

Mr. RICHARDS: I will do so.

ARMY (INDIAN OFFICERS).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information with regard to the Indianisation of the Indian Army: and whether the experiment has proved a success?

Mr. RICHARDS: Indianisation of the Indian Army was started in two Indian cavalry regiments and six Indian infantry battalions last year, and one Indian officer with King's Commission will be posted to each of these units each year in place of a British officer. It is obvious that it is too early as yet to gauge the prospects of success.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has it already started?

Mr. RICHARDS: Yes.

BOMBAY CORPORATION (TENDERS).

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL - THOMSON: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the municipal corporation of Bombay are issuing tender forms in which intending contractors are asked to note that the corporation have expressed the opinion that no articles manufactured in any part of the British Empire outside India should be used by any of the departments of the municipality or by any contractor, except when they are not available in any other part of the world: and whether he has received any information on the subject from the Government of India?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have heard from the Government of India that the resolution was passed, but have not yet heard of any action taken on it.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that investors in England will not be content to send
money to India if it is spent in buying foreign goods while their own people are out of work?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Do we understand that the hon. Gentleman is asking for further information?

Mr. RICHARDS: That is so.

KENYA COLONY (FRANCHISE).

Mr. SCURR: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the committee to he appointed by the Government of India to inquire into the proposed immigration law for Kenya Colony will also have power to inquire into the operation of the franchise law in Kenya, and to suggest, if deemed advisable, any modification thereof?

Mr. RICHARDS: The committee to which my hon. Friend refers is the committee which is being appointed by the Government of India in accordance with the decision of the Imperial Conference. Its purpose, so far as Kenya is concerned, is not limited to the proposed immigration law. It will be open to it to make representations, not only on that subject, nut also on the operation of the franchise law, and to suggest, if it so deem advisable, modifications thereof.

MEXICO.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government propose to recognise the Government of Mexico?

Mr. LORIMER: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take immediate steps to give full recognition to the Mexican Government?

Sir BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ministers propose to recognise the present. Mexican Government; and whether his attention has been drawn to the bitter complaints of the British Colony that it has been so long withheld?

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any other countries besides Great Britain continue to refuse recognition to the Government of General Obregon in
Mexico; and whether any special grounds exist which prevent Great Britain from recognising that Government immediately?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): The recognition of Mexico raises complicated issues which cannot very well be dealt with by means of question and answer. His Majesty's Government has had the matter before it and will lose no time in coming to a decision one way or the other.

Viscount CURZON: Is the position in Mexico more complicated than in the case of the Soviet Republic of Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: Very much more.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Would it not be advantageous to civilisation if the right hon. Gentleman were to ask the United States Government to take over Mexico? [HON. MEMBERS: Oh!]

ABYSSINIA (RAIDS INTO BRITISH TERRITORY).

Mr. JOHN HARRIS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many raids from Abyssinia into territory under British administration took place during last year; into what regions these raiders penetrated; what casualties were suffered by Abyssinians, British subjects, or British protected subjects, respectively; whether any, and, if so, how many, captives were carried away into Abyssinia; whether arms and ammunition bearing the Government stamp were captured from the raiders; and what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government in the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: With the hon. Member's permission, I propose to circulate a reply to this question in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the reply

His Majesty's Government has information of four important raids in the course of 1923.

1. The first took place on 19th March, at Khor Dagu Burun in the South East Sudan, on the pretext of collecting tribute, but probably with the object of capturing slaves. Four Sudanese are reported to have been killed by the raiders and two carried off to Abyssinia, though the
1286
Abyssinian Government claims that these persons were Abyssinian born. No information has been received regarding the mark of the rifles. His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa protested to the Abyssinian Government, which claims that the frontier of the Sudan was not crossed. It is sending for the responsible local official with a view to investigation and further reports are awaited by His Majesty's Government, but, owing to the extreme inaccessibility of the region, it may be some time before full details are available. In the meantime a police post is to be established this winter for the protection of the district.
2. The second raid took place in April, 1923, in the Horr Valley, near the southern end of Lake Rudolf. There was an encounter between a raiding party of ivory poachers and a detachment of the King's African Rifles, in which nine raiders were killed, twenty wounded, and five prisoners taken, the British troops sustaining no casualties. Of the eighty raiders who took part in the expedition only twenty are said to have returned home alive. A large quantity of ivory was captured from the raiders and four rifles of an old pattern, which did not bear the Government stamp. His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa protested to the Abyssinian Government, who undertook to have the leader of the raiding part, sent to the capital for punishment.
3. A third raid for ivory took place on 2nd September at. Lokitet, near Loima, Turkana, in Kenya. A fight ensued with a party of King's African Rifles, and four Abyssinians and four armed Turkana tribesmen were killed and one Abyssinian captured, no casualties being sustained by the King's African Rifles. It is considered that the raiders have received a salutory lesson, which will go far to discourage raids in this area. At the date of our latest reports, His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa was awaiting fuller details before raising the question with the Central Government.
4. The fourth raid was in October last, when a large party of Abyssinians, led by the local Governor in person, invaded a district in the unadministered part of the South-East Sudan in the neighbourhood of the Ajuba River. The main object of this raid appears to have been loot and cattle-driving, but it seems probable that some
1287
women and children were carried away into Abyssinia. A fuller report of the facts is awaited from the Sudan Government. Meanwhile His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa has lodged a vigorous protest with the Abyssinian Government, with the result that orders have been sent for the recall of the offending Governor.

In addition to the above, several petty cattle raids into Kenya have been frustrated by patrols of the King's African Rifles. The Kenya authorities state that no slave raids from Abyssinia have penetrated that territory during the past year. Such raids as have occurred have been with the object of obtaining ivory.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that the British delegation I the Assembly last September repeatedly drew attention to the danger of this very thing, and will the information which he has promised to circulate be forwarded to the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I have no objection to forwarding the information to the League of Nations. The information to be circulated is purely matter of fact.

Mr. EDWARD WOOD: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is fully seised of the importance of this question, and that he will take steps to lay all the information in the hands of the British representative on the League, in order that he may be fully informed on this matter when he attends any future meeting?

The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact, he has now got it before him.

AMBASSADORS' CONFERENCE.

Mr. J. HARRIS: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to continue the Ambassadors' Conference; if so, for what period; what is the annual cost of this Conference and its organisation; and what proportion of that cost falls upon Great Britain?

The PRIME MINISTER: Owing to special work recently assigned to it, some misunderstanding exists as regards the Ambassadors' Conference. The Ambassadors meet in conference in the exercise of their ordinary diplomatic duties. These duties would, if the Conference ceased to
meet, nevertheless remain to be performed by the Ambassadors and their staffs. No extra cost is, therefore, involved.

Mr. LINFIELD: Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to submit any other matter, that may arise to the consideration of the Ambassadors' Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have no such intention at present.

Captain BERKELEY: What precautions are his Majesty's Government taking to prevent a recurrence of such regrettable decisions as that participated in by the British representative at the recent meeting in regard to Corfu?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the League of Nations passed at its assembly on 15th December, 1920, a. recommendation limiting the scale of expenditure on armaments, and that during the last meeting of the Council Viscount Cecil was instructed to inform his colleagues that Great Britain was not prepared to adhere to this recommendation; whether the British delegates had voted in favour of this recommendation at Geneva; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider what effective steps can be taken by Great Britain to give a more consistent lead upon the question of the limitation of armaments?

The PRIME MINISTER: The position is not quite as suggested in the hon. Member's question. The recommendation to which he refers covered a definite period which expired last year. The last Assembly passed a new resolution, which was supported by the British delegation, requesting the Council to recommend members of the League, subject to certain reservations, not to exceed the expenditure on armaments provided for in their Budgets for the current financial year during the period necessary for the elaboration and adoption of the general scheme for the reduction of armaments. On examining this resolution the late
Government felt that, although no binding undertaking was involved, it would, nevertheless, be invidious to support the issue of a recommendation with which, in view of the indefinite period covered by it, they or their successors might find it impossible to comply Viscount Cecil was, accordingly, requested to propose at de last meeting of the Council that further consideration of the matter be postponed till the next meeting. His proposal was adopted. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made in the House on Tuesday in regard to the attitude of the Government towards League of Nations matters in general.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR BUREAU.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total annual cost of the International Labour Bureau of the League of Nations; and what is the annual contribution towards this cost made by Great Britain and other Powers, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I have been asked to reply. The expenditure of the International Labour Organisation for the calendar year 1924 is estimated, at current rates of exchange, at £315,000. In addition, the sum of about £73,000 has been provided in the 1924 Budget as a temporary contribution to meet a deficiency in the accounts of the organisation at the end of 1922 occasioned by arrears of contributions. This makes a total provision: of £388,000. The contribution of the British Empire (excluding those Dominions who are independent members of the organisation and make separate contributions, namely, Australia, Canada, India, Irish Free State, New Zealand, South Africa) is based on the proportions established for the general expenses of the League of Nations, and is a little under 10 per cent. of the total. This amounts in 1924 to approximately £37,000. With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the proportion of the expenses of the organisation allocated to each country.

Following is the statement promised:

Scale for the allocation of the expenses of the League for the year 1924:

States.
Units.


Abyssinia
2


Albania
1


Argentine
—


Australia
26


Austria
1


Belgium
15


Bolivia
5


Brazil
35


British Empire
88


Bulgaria
7


Canada
35


Chile
15


China
65


Colombia
7


Costa Rica
1


Cuba
9


Czechoslovakia
35


Denmark
12


Esthonia
3


Finland
10


France
78


Greece
9


Guatemala
1


Haiti
2


Honduras
1


Hungary
3


India
65


Ireland
10


Italy
61


Japan
61


Latvia
3


Liberia
1


Lithuania
4


Luxemburg
1


Netherlands
20


New Zealand
10


Nicaragua
1


Norway
11


Panama
1


Paraguay
1


Persia
6


Peru
10


Poland
25


Portugal
9


Rumania
29


Salvador
1


Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
26


Siam
10


South Africa
15


Spain
40


Sweden
18


Switzerland
15


Uruguay
7


Venezuela
5


Total
932

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the hon. Member at the same time circulate information as to how many countries are in arrears with their payments?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.

FOREIGN OFFICE SUPERVISION.

Captain BERKELEY: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to appoint an. Under-Secretary charged with the special duty, under the general supervision of the Foreign Secretary, of dealing with questions affecting the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I do not think it necessary.

SUBMARINE WARFARE (WASHINGTON CONVENTION).

Commander BELLAIRS: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Parliament has yet ratified the Resolutions of the Washington Conference for the mitigation of the horrors of submarine warfare on shipping?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman ascertain why these Resolutions are not submitted to the French Chamber, in view of the long delay that has taken place.

Mr. PRINGLE: Has the Government any expectation that this ratification will be given?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

DEBTS TO BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Sir B. SHEFFIELD: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the agreement lately entered into recognising de jure the Soviet Government, the Government is prepared to guarantee the sums that may become due to British firms for goods delivered to the order of Russian firms or subjects?

The PRIME MINISTER: It has been arranged with the Government of the Union of Soviet Republics, as I stated last week, that the question of export credits should be considered, together
with the other issues to which I referred, by the conference between representatives of this country and of Russia which is shortly to assemble in London

PASSPORT (DR. DAVIDSON).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Soviet Government to grant a passport visa to enter Russia to Dr. Davidson, the representative in Eastern Europe and Siberia of the British and Foreign Bible Society; and whether he will make representations to the Soviet Government with regard to it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information about this ease other than that which has appeared in the Press.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries in regard to this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not my business to make inquiries. If there are any representations to be made I will consider them.

RUSSIAN WOMEN AND BRITISH SUBJECTS (MARRIAGE).

Mr. JAMES GARDNER: 27.
asked the. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has any record of the number of Russian women that have married British subjects in Russia daring the last three years; how many of them have since come to reside in Great Britain; and can he give any comparative figures for the three years prior to the war?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

UNION OF SOVIET REPUBLICS.

Major Sir A. SINCLAIR: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what. republics constitute the Union of Soviet Republics?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, as established by the Constitution of the 6th July, 1923, consists of the following four Republics:
The Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic,
The Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic,
The White Russian Socialist Soviet Republic, and
The Transcaucasian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show within what boundaries these republics claim to exercise sovereignty and what steps does he propose to take to ascertain whether the people within these boundaries do, to use his own phrase, acknowledge the authority of such sovereignty?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must just take the circumstances as they are.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the authority of the government of the Union of Soviet Republics is recognised by His Majesty's Government as extending to Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia; and whether the de jure recognition extended by His Majesty's Government to the republic of Georgia on 27th January, 1922, the de facto recognition extended to the republic of Azerbaijan in January, 1920, and the de jure recognition extended to the republic of Armenia in August, 1920, have been withdrawn.

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative, inasmuch as the territories mentioned are understood to acknowledge the authority of the Union Government. Official recognition of Governments which no longer exist de facto naturally lapses when they cease to function.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very short time ago—only last July—suggesting to the last Government that it should be a condition of recognition of the Soviet Government that the independence of these people should be restored? Will he take steps to see that they are not left under the heel of the Bolshevik tyranny?

The PRIME MINISTER: Obviously that question must be answered partly at least by the peoples of the countries themselves.

Mr. PRINGLE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman himself personal knowledge of
the position in Georgia, and is he not aware that the people of Georgia are against the Soviet Government and desire their own form of Government?

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not also aware that the people of India want to be released—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it in order for an hon. Member of this House, in consequence of the recognition of the Soviet Government, to call them "Bolsheviks.?"

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not sure whether that term implies a reproach or a compliment. I do not propose to give any ruling in the matter.

ARREST (TIFLIS).

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the reported arrest of representatives of British firms by the Soviet State Political Department at Tiflis; whether any of the persons so arrested are British subjects and what action is being taken by His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Imperial Ottoman Bank have informed me that their Tiflis representative, who is a Turkish citizen, has been arrested by the local State Political Department. The British Chargé d'Affaires at Moscow has been instructed to make inquiries and, if he is satisfied that the facts reported are correct, to endeavour to secure the release of the bank's representative. No other such arrests have been brought to my notice.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the, right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending a Consul-General to Tiflis to look after the interests of British subjects?

BRITISH SUBJECTS (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).

Captain TERRELL: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the negotiations between His Britannic Majesty's Government and the Soviet Republic, any claim will be put forward for consideration for compensation for those British subjects who were murdered in the revolution; and how many such victims there were?

The PRIME MINISTER: Claims for compensation for British subjects who have suffered imprisonment or personal injury in Russia since 1917 have been included in the list of subjects for discussion at the forthcoming conference. Three claims for death resulting from disturbances during the revolution have been registered with the Russian Claims Department. There may, however, be others which have not been presented.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is Captain Cromie amongst them?

GREAT BRITAIN AND LITHUANIA

Mr. WHITE: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make to the House any statement regarding the, diplomatic relations existing between Great Britain and Lithuania; and whether there are any outstanding questions between the two countries which disturb the cordiality of relationship between them?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government accorded de jure recognition on 20th December, 1922, to the Lithuanian Government. The establishment of full diplomatic relations is dependent on the settlement of the Memel question, which is at present in the hands of the League of Nations, and which His Majesty's Government trust may soon be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: As the subject of Memel is purely a. diplomatic question, is there any reason why the Minister should not present his credentials, seeing that the relations between the two countries are cordial?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is the situation I have found. I am quite willing to consider it further, if there be any pressing need for the steps suggested by my hon. Friend being taken.

RUHR OCCUPATION AND REPARATIONS.

Captain BERKELEY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to make a, state-
ment as to the Ruhr occupation and the reparations question; whether he has considered the propriety of raising these questions in the Council of the League of Nations; and, if so, what is his decision?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can make no statement at present. The House will agree that His Majesty's Government must first consider the conclusions at which the Reparation Commission may arrive after receiving the reports, on which so much depends, of the Commmittees of experts set up by the Commission to investigate Germany's financial situation, and thereafter open negotiations with the Governments concerned.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before we arrive at some satisfactory solution of this difficulty?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot. We are hurrying on as quickly as circumstances will permit.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it the policy of the Government to demand from Germany the payment of claims for pensions allowances?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is a question on the subject later.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the general lines for the settlement of the Palatinate which have been agreed to by Great Britain and which were referred to in a communication from a Foreign Office official which was read in another place by the Lord President of the Council on 13th February; and when such agreement was come to and with what Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no formal agreement embodied in any one document, but, as a result of considerable correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the French and Belgian Governments, it has been decided to entrust to the representatives of the three Governments at Coblenz the task of supervising the gradual restoration of normal administration in the Palatinate and the disarming of all unauthorised persons. With the object of facilitating a settlement on these lines, the Rhineland High Commission has nominated an inter-Allied
delegation which has proceeded to the Palatinate and is co-operating with the local authorities.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are in favour of demanding payment of any reparations from Germany?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in that case, his policy differs in any way from that of the late Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not take up time in that way. It is a matter of opinion for himself.

Mr. DICKSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has had bequeathed to him by his predecessors any method of receiving reparations other than by goods or commodities, and, if not, will he continue taking ships?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the occasion for such a discussion.

JUBALAND.

Captain TERRELL: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the exact nature of the commitment of the late Government to an agreement which might involve a certain small cession of territory; whether this refers to Jubaland; and whether the contemplated action in respect of this strip of territory has been public for a long time past?

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: On a point of Order. Is it not your ruling, Sir, that not more than three questions should stand in the name of an hon. Member, and may I call attention to the fact that the hon. Member has put down five questions for to-day?

Mr. SPEAKER: I will deal with those extra questions when they are reached.

The PRIME MINISTER: The exact nature of the commitment of the late Government in this respect is to be seen from Article 13 of the Treaty of London of 1915; the replies to the second and third parts of the question are in the affirmative.

PUBLIC SERVICES (ANDERSON COMMITTEE).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an undertaking that, before embarking on any action in regard to the recommendations made by the Anderson Committee in reference to the pay of the public services, he will give an opportunity to the House for a full discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: The House will no doubt have ample opportunity of criticising in Supply any action the Government may take but I do not think that it would be reasonable to limit the freedom of action of the Government by giving so extensive a pledge as that suggested.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In determining the action of the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the promises which he is reported to have made during the General Election that any proposal made to reduce the pay of the fighting Services would meet with the uncompromising hostility of the Labour patty? [HON. MEMHERS: "Answer!"]

GOVERNMENT BILLS.

Mr. FOOT: 38 and 40.
asked the Prime Minister (1) if it is the intention of the Government to introduce the Criminal Justice Bill and Administration of Justice Bill during the present Session;
(2) whether the Government intend to take steps during the present Session to consolidate the Law relating to real property?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.

Mr. FOOT: In reference to Question number 40, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Law of Property Act, passed two years ago, comes into operation on the 1st January next, and if the law be not consolidated in the meantime very serious inconvenience will result?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is one of the reasons which I had in mind.

WOMEN FRANCHISE.

Mr. FOOT: 39.
asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Measure
during the present Session to secure to women the franchise upon conditions similar in all respects to those of men?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have not yet had an opportunity of considering whether it will be possible to take any action in regard to this matter in the present Session.

SCOTTISH LAW OFFICERS.

Mr. HOGGE: 41.
asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he is making to enable Scottish Members to have the advantage of legal advice on Bills, etc., in Debate, in view of the fact that the Lord Advocate is not to have a seat in the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Secretary for Scotland will deal with all legal questions in the House of Commons. If, however, hon. Members on any legal matter arising in connection with business in the House desire to have direct contact with the Law Officers for Scotland, arrangements will be made for their wishes to be met.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the Secretary for Scotland have any emolument for his legal advice?

Mr. PRINGLE: How will the Secretary for Scotland be able to answer any legal questions arising on the discussion of Bills going through the Scottish Standing Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend might just wait and see.

Mr. PRINGLE: Will it be arranged as in the last. Parliament?

Mr. HOGGE: Will the Lord Advocate be in personal attendance when Scottish Members are meeting in Standing Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I believe that that is the intention.

Mr. HOGGE: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether he hopes to secure a Solicitor-General for Scotland who will have a seat in the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: An announcement will be made without delay. It is
not proposed, for the present, that the Solicitor-General should have a seat in this House.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Are we to understand that on the Scottish business which is to be debated on the Estimates in this House, we are not to have any of the advice that comes from the Scottish Law Officers who are usually associated with these affairs?

The PRIME MINISTER: No.

Mr. HOGGE: Does not the Prime Minister remember his own and his party's opposition in last November to the continued absence of both Scottish Law Officers from this House, and does he, as the Leader of the Democratic party, think that it is fair to those of us who come from Scotland that we should have neither of our legal advisers in this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I indicated in the reply to the question which I have just answered, the arrangement is for the present.

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Viscount CURZON: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the prevailing conditions of unemployment, His Majesty's Government are prepared to favourably consider and afford assistance under the Trade Facilities Act and unemployment schemes generally to the construction of the Channel tunnel?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. Graham): I have been asked to reply. Other issues besides unemployment are raised by the Channel tunnel project, and would have to be disposed of before the application to it of schemes for relieving unemployment could be considered.

Viscount CURZON: Are the Government prepared to give favourable consideration to schemes put before them in connection with this matter?

Mr. GRAHAM: As the Noble Lord knows, there are political and other difficulties connected with the Channel tunnel project. If those were removed, this is a scheme which undoubtedly would be submitted to the Advisory Committee on the Trade Facilities Act; but, of course,
it would be entirely for the Advisory Committee to say whether it was to be assisted or not.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT, 1896.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce legislation amending the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, so as to bring it in conformity with Section 4 of the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have been asked to reply. The Government propose to introduce in another place at an early date a Bill to deal with this matter?

TREATIES (RATIFICATION).

Mr. MOREL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to make a rule of always submitting treaties with Foreign Powers to this House before ratification, and of giving ample time for an examination of the implications of such treaties before they actually come before the House for discussion; and whether time can be given for the submission to the House of a Motion for making this practice the recognised usage of the House, and for ensuring that no diplomatic arrangement, or verbal or written understanding with a foreign State involving military obligations, shall he undertaken, or preparations for co-operation in war between the military and naval staffs and the military and naval staffs of a foreign State, shall be sanctioned without the express authority of Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: This subject is at present being inquired into. In my speech on the 12th instant I made some reference to it, and I hope I may be in a position to indicate a little more fully the attitude of His Majesty's Government His the points raised when intoducing the Bill for carrying into effect the Treaty of Lausanne.

EX-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL SERVICE).

Mr. CLUSE: 46.
asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to take steps with a view to the suspension of the dismissal of competent ex-service temporary civil servants which are now
taking place, or are about to take place, in various Government Departments; and whether he will ensure security of tenure to such men who have by their service proved their efficiency, and are now faced with the prospect of unemployment and want for themselves and their dependants?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have been asked to reply. Any dismissals which are now taking place are the result of decrease of work. I regret that it would be impossible to justify the retention in the Government service of clerks employed on a purely temporary basis for whom work is no longer available, but the names of all ex-service men discharged on redundancy are notified to the Joint Substitution Board, and preference is given to such men in filling temporary appointments in other Departments. As I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Bilston on the 14th instant, the Government intend to give the fullest possible consideration to the claims of ex service men for preferential treatment. The claim that further opportunities should he given to ex-service temporary employés to qualify for such permanent appointments as are available will no doubt receive careful consideration from the Southborough Committee.

Sir F. HALL: 74.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there are a very large number of ex-service men engaged temporarily as civil servants; and whether, considering that in some thousands of cases these men have carried out their duties in an entirely satisfactory manner for periods ranging from three to five years, have proved their efficiency, and are fulfilling the same duties as civil servants who have passed the usual examination, he will give instructions that as large a number as possible of the competent officers may be transferred to the established list without examination as and when vacancies occur?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have been asked to reply. As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, the recommendations of Lord Lytton's Committee on this matter have been carried out. The subsequent Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Southborough have not dealt with it in their two interim Reports. The question of what further action, if any, should be taken is under consideration.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman does not think it unfair to these men, who have proved their capabilities for the last three or four years, that something should not be done to put them in a permanent position?

Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. and gallant Member no doubt knows the difficulty, but I may tell him and the House quite frankly that during the past two weeks we have been considering the whole position, and I hope very soon to be able to make a definite statement on this and other points.

Sir F. HALL: If I repeat this question this day week, will the hon. Member be able to give a further reply?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid that that would be too short a. time. There are very large Civil Service issues involved.

IMPERIAL AIRSHIP SERVICE.

Commander BELLAIRS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he can give an assurance that the Imperial airship scheme that was approved in principle by the late Government, and by the Defence Committee and Imperial Conference, will be laid before Parliament for approval without further delay?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give any such assurance until the Government have had time to examine the matter. It is now doing so.

ROYAL NAVY (SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME).

Captain Viscount EDNAM: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now state whether it is his intention to adopt the shipbuilding programme of the late Government; and whether he is aware of the inconvenience being caused to shipbuilders and naval contractors, as well as the anxiety about further unemployment caused to their workers, pending a. statement of policy on this subject?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I have been asked to reply. I hope that it will shortly be possible to make the announcement referred to in my reply of 13th February to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: In view of the terrible unemployment in Barrow and on the Clyde, can no definite date be fixed for this announcement?

Mr. AMMON: We are hastening forward this business as fast as we can, in order to be able to give an early reply.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Arising out of that reply, which is very kind, may I say that we want some definite date on a matter of so much importance?

Mr. PRINGLE: Will the Admiralty have regard to the revival of mercantile shipbuilding in coming to a decision?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to start these vessels before the House has had an opportunity of discussing the question?

Viscount EDNAM: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the country is under the impression that the Prime Minister took office mainly to tackle the unemployment question? He has been in office two months, and has so far made no concrete statement as to his policy. The reply given to the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Somerville) dealt with unemployed relief policy.

Mr. AMMON: All the factors raised today are being taken into consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House be permitted to discuss this matter before anything is done?

REFERENDUM SYSTEM.

Mr. PENNY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to establish a system of referendum to form a part of our constitution, in order to save the country from the inconvenience and disturbance of frequent elections?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

Mr. PENNY: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the Government will behave in such a way that it will be kept in power for a reasonable time?

FIGHTING SERVICES (ESTIMATES).

Commander BELLAIRS: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the present
Government endorses the documents adhered to by the two previous Governments that the fighting departments are to frame their estimates on the assumption that a great war is not to be anticipated for a specified term of years?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member is no doubt alluding to the instruction of the then Government given in the year 1919 and referred to in paragraph 2 of the Report on National Expenditure that the Estimates for the three Fighting Services were to be built up on the assumption that no great war Was to be anticipated for the next ten years, although provision should be made for the possible expansion of trained units in case of an emergency arising. The present Government have not had occasion specifically to revise that instruction.

MR. CAHIR HEALY (INTERNMENT).

Mr. PRINGLE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to give facilities for the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Penistone? ["That the letter informing the house of the internment of Mr. Cahir Healy, a Member of this House, be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the matters referred to therein, and of reporting whether they demand the further attention of this House."]

The PRIME MINISTER: The imposition of Mr. Cahir Healy of the restrictions which are in question is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Imperial Government, but I am in a position to state that the Northern Ireland Government., acting within their own powers, have released Mr. Cahir Healy, and have withdrawn the Order as to his entering a certain area in County Fermanagh. In these circumstances, there would appear to be no longer any necessity for giving facilities for the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman perfectly sure that the prohibition has been withdrawn?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, that is my information, my specific information.

Mr. PRINGLE: In view of the fact that the internment and the prohibition raise general questions which may affect other Members of Parliament, does not the right hon. Gentleman regard it as advisable, in the interests of this House, to have a finding from a Committee on a matter of such important principles?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper. It ceases to be a question of immediate and pressing importance.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: Will the Prime Minister state whether Mr. Cahir Healy now intends to come to this House, having got the opportunity?

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 52.
asked the Primo Minister whether he proposes to introduce a Bill for the reform of the Upper House?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no present intention on the part of the Government to introduce such a Bill.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Prime Minister consider bringing in a short Bill so as to make it possible for Ministers to speak in the other House?

Mr. PRINGLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to enable the creation of life peers, so that a Labour Government may not be under the necessity of creating either bachelors or sterile people as peers?

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARDS.

Captain TERRELL: 54.
asked the Prime Minister how he proposes to re-establish Agricultural Wages Boards; whether legislation and, if so, of what nature will be needed; whether these boards will possess compulsory powers and how they will be composed; and how the farmers are to be enabled to pay higher wages without any assistance to permit them to do so?

Lieut. - Colonel WOODWARK: 101.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to restore the agricultural wages boards to secure a living wage for the agricultural workers?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Buxton): I will answer these questions together. I regret that I am not yet in a position to give details of the proposals for the better regulation of agricultural wages, which I hope to place before the House at an early date.

Captain TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way clear to answer the last part of the question—"how the farmers are to be enabled to pay higher wages without any assistance to permit them to do so"? The Minister has simply swept the whole thing on one side.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I press the Minister to reply?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Would it be possible, in the interests of the agricultural Members of this House, to have questions answered by the Minister of Agriculture at an earlier stage of the proceedings?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Captain TERRELL: May I press the Minister for an answer as to when we may expect this legislation?

Mr. BUXTON: The subject raised is too large and too important to be dealt with by question and answer, and I refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made in the Debate last Thursday.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not the fact that the obvious duty of a Minister of the Crown is to answer the questions which are put down on the Paper?

Mr. BUXTON: That is a matter for argument. I cannot add anything to what. I have said.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. HOBHOUSE: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the Government's intention to make any provision for widows, pensions during the present Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: A statement of the Government's views on this subject will be given during the Debate on the Motion which is to be discussed next Wednesday.

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES.

Mr. POTTS: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can lay upon the
Table of the House copies, and supply Members of Parliament with them, of all the existing international treaties made between the British government and foreign powers?

The PRIME MINISTER: Each treaty as concluded is supplied to hon. Members when laid before Parliament in the Treaty Series. I could not undertake to furnish all hon. Members with copies of all existing treaties between His Majesty's Government and foreign powers, which are comprised in a publication ("Hertslet's Commercial Treaties") now running to 29 large volumes. But this publication and "British and Foreign State Papers," which contains all treaties concluded between all nations, are available in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. A revised edition of a "Hand-book of Commercial Treaties," containing all the more essential documents, is now in preparation, and will be published by H.M. Stationery Office in a few months' time.

Mr. POTTS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any secret treaties exist between the late Government and foreign Powers which are not deposited in the Library?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is another question altogether. I must have separate notice of that question.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (FINANCES).

Mr. F. MARTIN: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce in the present Session legislation with regard to the finances of the Church of Scotland?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 14th instant by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), in which he, stated that the Government have under consideration the Bill dealing with the property and endowments of the Church of Scotland which has been introduced in another place.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it proposed to introduce this Bill here or in another place?

The PRIME MINISTER: That point has not been considered.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government, when this Bill is introduced, to give it their support?

The PRIME MINISTER: Quite obviously, if His Majesty's Government introduce a Bill, they will give it their support. The Government are now considering the Bill.

Mr. PRINGLE: Have any representations been received as to what recently occurred in the parish of Cathcart; and will the consideration of what happened there affect the decision of the Government?

Dr. CHAPPLE: On a point of Order. Is there no limit to the number of questions which may be put down on one day to one Minister? There are fifty-nine questions addressed to one Minister on the Paper.

CURRENCY.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 59.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to the many authoritative statements made within the past two years upon the ruinous effects upon trade and employment, caused by the policy of currency deflation and the effort to re-establish a tree market for gold in London; if the Government is still guided by the conclusions of the committee on currency and foreign exchanges, commonly called the Cunliffe Committee; and if the Government is prepared to set up a Royal Commission of inquiry into our whole monetary system?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are of opinion that the reappointment of a Committee on currency and foreign exchanges at the present time would be premature and inexpedient. The Government are still guided by the conclusions of the Committee on currency and foreign exchanges commonly called the Cunliffe Committee.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Do the Government find themselves at variance with the outside expert such as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and are of opinion there is no problem to inquire into?

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Is it a fact that there has been no deflation for nine months?

Mr. B. SMITH: Will the hon. Member explain, if there has been no deflation, why prices are going up?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: As this is a matter of grave importance, will the Prime Minister state whether he agrees with the proposition put in the question, namely, that the effort to re-establish a free market for gold in London has had a ruinous effect upon trade and employment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I confine myself to the answer which I have given to the question.

LABOUR AND SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL.

Sir G. DOYLE: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the resignations from the Socialistische Arbeiter Internationale of the, Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Colonial Secretary, the Minister of Labour, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Minister of Transport, it is proposed on behalf of the Government to replace them by other representatives?

Sir W. DAVISON: 68.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that it is expressly provided in the constitution of the Labour and Socialist International, of which he and his colleagues are still members, that resolutions of the International imply a self-imposed limitation on the autonomy of affiliated organisations, and that in conflicts between nations the International should be recognised as the highest authority; and if he will state whether he and his colleagues intend to continue their membership of this international organisation?

Mr. W. THORNE: Before the Prime Minister answers these questions, may I ask if he is aware, that neither this Government nor any other Government have any power in connection with filling the vacancies caused by these resignations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to previous replies on this subject, except to regret that, in spite of what was then said, the first of these questions continues the circulation of statements that are not in accordance with facts.

Sir W. DAVISON: In regard to Question No. 68, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House, is there, or is there not, a self-imposed limitation on the autonomy of affiliated organisations in connection with this international organisation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understood that point was covered in the answer already given. I have no objection to repeating it. So long as a body is affiliated to this society, it accepts the decisions of the society as a nation does so long as it is part of the League of Nations. Should any decision be taken which would be an oppressive limitation of the freedom of a body, or which would be contrary to the fundamental conceptions that a body has of its duty to itself and to the electors, then the ordinary method would be adopted, and the body would resign and case to be affiliated.

Sir W. DAVISON: May we take it that it is not the case that this is a self-imposed limitation on the autonomy of the various organisations forming the International?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Are we to understand that the Labour party regard themselves as much bound to this organisation as the country regards itself bound to the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: So long as the Labour party agrees with the decisions of this International.

Sir G. DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state if he knows whether these vacancies have been filled?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already replied to that question.

IRAQ.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has had an opportunity of considering the situation in Iraq; whether he contemplates any change in or modification of the policy pursued by the last Government in that area: and what is the estimated expenditure in Iraq during the present year?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are giving careful consideration to the matters raised in the first and second parts of the question in view of obligations imposed by the Mandate on the one hand and of the undesirability of remaining in Iraq any longer than is necessary to set the Arab Government on its own feet. With regard to the third part of the question, expenditure in Iraq from the British Exchequer for the year ending 31st March, 1924, is estimated at
£6,900,000. I understand that a substantial reduction is anticipated for the year 1924–25.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: In any consideration of the problem of Iraq, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the condition of the large number of Christians in Mosul and neighbourhood?

The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact, I can assure my hon. Friend that this question has been repeatedly before us in connection with these considerations.

Mr. E. WOOD: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing exactly the policy of the late Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not responsible for the policy of the late Government. I am pursuing the policy which I have indicated in my answer.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was it not the policy of the late Government which led to the bombing of villages?

EGYPTIAN TRIBUTE BOND-HOLDERS.

Mr. FRANKLIN: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the position of the bondholders of the Imperial Ottoman Government Four per Cent., 1891 (Egyptian Tribute), and Imperial Ottoman Government Three and a-Half per Cent. Conversion Loan, 1894 (Egyptian Tribute), secured on the tribute payable by Egypt to Turkey; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the bondholders shall be fully secured, in view of the proposed release of Turkey from all undertakings and obligations under Article No. 18 of the Treaty of Lausanne?

Mr. GRAHAM: Article 18 of the Treaty of Lausanne in no way modifies the existing arrangements whereby the service of the loans referred to in the Question is met out of payments made by the Government of Egypt. There is, therefore, no material change in the position of the bondholders, and the question of taking any steps of the kind suggested does not arise.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: Is it not, the ease that an alteration has in fact been made because it is proposed to make the payments of the services of the debts in the currency of the country which pays?

Mr. GRAHAM: I think I should require notice of that, but in the main question there is no difference, because, as the hon. Member knows, the payments under these loans, namely, interest and sinking fund charges, have of course been made by Egypt.

SMOKE ABATEMENT.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 73.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to give any approximate date for the introduction of a Bill to deal with coal smoke abatement?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Tuesday last to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: But seeing that there is nothing more important than the health of the people, will the right hon. Gentleman do all he possibly can to expedite the passing of this Measure?

PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE.

Captain BERKELEY: 64.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government proposes to accede to the compulsory jurisdiction protocol of the Statute creating the Permanent Court of International Justice; and, if not, whether he will give reasons for the decision?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on the 14th instant, to which there is nothing at present to add.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government accepts the terms of settlement of the British debt to America, or whether they propose to reopen negotiations to arrange other terms?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The second part does not therefore arise.

LONDON TRAFFIC.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: 71.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to introduce a Traffic Bill early enough to become operative by the summer, in view of the abnormal congestion that will exist at that time of the year in London owing to the many visitors attending the Empire Exhibition?

The PRIME MINISTER: The problems in connection with control of London traffic are, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, complicated, and the Government has not yet been in a position to announce a decision.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the late Government secured absolute unanimity as to the lines on which a Bill should be framed, except as regards the London Labour party, and is he going to allow the London Labour party to hold up this very important Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not the information I have received.

Colonel ASHLEY: It is a fact.

The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to repeat that question on the Paper, I will look further into it.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I will draw attention to this question on the Motion for the Adjournment to-morrow, in order to give him an opportunity of explaining the matter.

MOTHERS (LEGAL STATUS).

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: 72.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that legislation to provide for mothers equal rights and responsibilities with fathers with regard to their infant children has been before Parliament three successive Sessions, and that this reform has a place on the manifestoes of the Labour and Liberal parties, and has, moreover, the support of women's organisations all over the country, the Government proposes to introduce legislation on this subject this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have this matter under considera-
tion, and are willing to confer with the promoters of the Bill now before Parliament, and with others interested, with a view to seeing whether agreement can be reached as to the main provisions to be included in any Measure on this subject.

S.S. "AUSTRALIA" (MASTER'S IMPRISONMENT).

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the sentence of 15 days' imprisonment passed upon the master of the British India Steam Navigation Company's liner "Australia" by the Chambre Correctionnelle at Antwerp; if he is aware that the action has aroused great indignation in British maritime circles at the disgrace imposed upon a British shipmaster by a foreign State for a disaster which arose out of an error of judgment on the part of an expert pilot whom the master was legally bound to engage for the safe navigation of his steamer in foreign waters; whether he will at once take steps to secure an immediate explanation from the Belgian Government and compensation for the officer; whether the Belgian Government can be informed that such proceedings cannot be tolerated and that action against the master of British ships in such cases must rest with the Government of this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am awaiting a report on this matter from His Majesty's Consul-General at Antwerp, and on its receipt will consider whether any action is possible or desirable. I am advised, however, that the Belgian claim to jurisdiction in this case is technically correct, as the collision occurred in Belgian waters.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Board of Trade has already been into this question and decided that no official inquiry shall be held, as the action of the master was perfectly proper, and that the chief of the experts who presided over the Commission against the captain in the Chambre Correctionnelle was a colonel in the Belgian Army, and what authority has he to be an authority on pilotage?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should like to see that question on the Paper. I had to revise the Noble Lord's first question,
and to strike out words which seemed to cast reflection on a friendly Government.

Mr. CLARRY: While the right hon. Gentleman is considering this matter, will he note that the Pilotage Committee of Antwerp, who have had this matter under consideration, have exonerated the captain, while the other authorities have condemned him?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it is necessary that hon. Members with such valuable information in their possession should either communicate it to me before asking the question, or put it into the quest ions which they address to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCK STRIKE.

COURT OF INQUIRY APPOINTED.

Mr. PENNY: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the serious position at the docks, he can give any information to the House whether he will take steps to set up a Court of Inquiry to consider the question of the additional is., which alone remains in dispute?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): In view of the public interest involved in this dispute, I will, with the permission of the House, make a brief statement in reply to the hon. Member
The negotiations between the employers' and men's representatives continued until Monday last. I was informed on the evening of that day that a settlement had not been reached. I accordingly at once invited representatives of the parties to meet me the next day. My invitation was accepted, and I held a series of meetings extending throughout the whole of the remainder of the week. The negotiations included some discussion of the very important question of decasualisation, but attention was necessarily concentrated on the claim for an increase of wages. On Thursday the employers informed me that they were willing to concede an advance of 1s. per day as from the 3rd March, with an adjustment of piecework rates; as to the further 1s., they felt themselves unable to meet the demand, but they were willing to refer that question to immediate arbitration. The men's representatives stated that they were unable to accept this offer.
The negotiations continued throughout Friday and Saturday, without, I regret to say, leading to a settlement. In the circumstances, I have decided to appoint a Court of Inquiry under Part II of the Industrial Courts Act, to inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute and to make a report thereon. I am pleased to say that Mr. Holman Gregory, K.C., has consented to act as Chairman.
I may add that I have seen representatives of the parties this morning and have been informed that it is understood between them that, apart from the Court of Inquiry, every facility exists for a joint meeting if at any moment such a meeting seems likely to be advantageous. I intend keeping in touch with the parties, and they have assured me that if at any time think it would be beneficial to convene a further meeting, they will be willing to attend it.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Court of Inquiry will assemble?

Mr. SHAW: I hope that the Court will meet to-morrow afternoon, and at once begin its work.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether he himself made any suggestion for a settlement of this dispute? If so, would he kindly communicate it to the House?

Mr. SHAW: When I saw that a deadlock had arisen, I asked both sides if they would take into consideration a third party suggestion. Both sides agreed they would, on the condition that the suggestion should be without prejudice to either side, should be considered as private, and not be used in discussion. Consequently, I feel unable to state to the House what it was.

Mr. PENNY: Will the Minister of Labour endeavour, as far as possible, to see that work is resumed pending this Court of Inquiry.

Mr. SHAW: I cannot give any undertaking of that kind. The only undertaking I can give is that I will try my level best to get the parties to meet again, with a view to coming to an agreed settlement.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication how long the Court of Inquiry will be in
taking the evidence, before coining to some conclusion upon the subject?

Mr. SHAW: Obviously, I cannot form any estimate I have, from personal knowledge, asked a gentleman to serve as chairman whose qualifications are well known. I believe that he will be able to conduct the inquiry in such a way that at the earliest possible moment this House and the public may have the facts.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the Court entitled to inquire into the possibility of de-casualisation of labour?

Mr. SHAW: This Court will have to inquire into the dispute, and I take it everything included in the dispute will be subject to this Inquiry.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. CLARRY: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken, or are contemplated, to maintain the unloading and distribution of food supply during the continuance of the transport dockers' strike.

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government will not fail to take what steps are necessary to secure the transport of necessary food supplies, and have already set up the nucleus of the organisation. May I add an expression of hope that nothing will be said or asked here to make difficult the only thing that really matters—a settlement of the dispute?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Captain W. BENN: May I ask the Leader of the House, in reference to the Debate on Air to-morrow night, would it be possible for the representative of the Government to speak early in the Debate, so that we may have, for the first time, some pronouncement of their view?

The PRIME MINISTER: We will take that suggestion into consideration.

Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that it is the old practice of the House on such Motions for a Minister to reply immediately, and that the other practice is only a bad practice established in the bad days of the Coalition?

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I have under consideration a Bill for the enlarging of the present Unemployment Insurance Act, a Bill which, by reason of the fact that it will be technical and difficult to draft, I find myself unable for the moment to present; but I want the House to understand that this Bill I now present is not finality, and is merely a Bill to deal with a pressing immediate difficulty. The Bill, which I hope is non-controversial, is a Bill of one Clause, and is intended to deal with one injustice from which, I think, insured persons are now suffering. The present position is, that unemployment of an exceptional kind is facing the country. In the opinion of the Government, that unemployment is directly caused by the War, and ought to be considered as a national responsibility. The present position is that the industries bear, roughly, three-quarters of a burden that ought to be purely national, and, in addition to that, there are certain sections of the present Act which operate in such a way that at certain times people who have been continuously unemployed for long periods, persons who generally are very poor, suddenly fall out of benefits altogether, which means that, in the case of those who are too proud to go to the guardians—and there are hundreds of thousands of working men who are too proud to go to the guardians—they simply suffer the more in silence. There are those who go to the guardians, and the result is that precisely those towns which are worst hit by unemployment, precisely those towns to which the nation has the greatest responsibility, find themselves burdened by an increase in the poor rate, due to the fact that this gap exists in the National Insurance scheme.
4.0 P.M.
This gap that I am asking the House to remove operates in this way. After 12 weeks of what is known as uncovenanted benefit, just as I previously said, after a
long term of unemployment, three weeks is suddenly chopped out of the middle of the benefits, and people are thrown on their own resources. I am proposing that this gap of three weeks shall be filled in, and that the benefits shall run concurrently until the end of the term. I cannot justify the gap. It is a relic of an old system that was built up long before the War, that dealt with pre-War conditions, and bears no resemblance at all to present day conditions. In the old days before the War—and the Bills have been built up on the old system—Friendly Societies existed. Payments of benefit were made strictly in accordance with the number of contributions that had been paid by the worker, and when the worker had been out of employment for a certain length of time the benefit was stopped for a double reason, the first being that
the proportion between payments and benefits had been established, and the second being that it was felt that some pressure was necessary to get the person who was being paid benefits into work. That state of things does not exist to-day. There is a direct national responsibility. It is a responsibility of a totally different kind from the responsibility of pre-War times. The nation itself is escaping a liability that ought to fall on it, and is putting it on to the poorest of our population and making them bear a burden much too hard for them to bear. That is the position of affairs, and I am asking the House—and I do not think that I am asking in vain—without a long speech, to give me the power to meet what I consider to be a claim of elementary justice. I am asking that this gap should be abolished and that the benefit should be paid continuously until the end of that term whatever that term may be. May I say, in conclusion, that there is a tendency to speak of this insurance payment—even the workmen themselves use the term—as a dole.

Dr. MACNAMARA: And the Prime Minister.

Mr. SHAW: And the Prime Minister and myself and the ex-Minister of Labour.

Dr. MACNAMARA: indicated dissent.

Mr. SHAW: This so-called "dole"—I want to attack the word—is not a dole at all. As a matter of fact, the nation is evading its responsibility to the unem-
ployed people by making the industries themselves pay three-fourths of the benefit. It is wrong to call it a dole, because the industries—the workers and the employers—pay three-fourths of the premiums. It is, therefore, no charity on the part of anybody. It is rather an evasion by the State of a very considerable part of its own responsibility. That is the position as I see it and as, I think, the House will see it. We can find no justification in logic, in fair play, and, above all, in humanity for the present condition of things. I estimate that this proposal will cost under £500,000 and that not more than one-quarter will in any case come from State contributions. That £500,000 will be paid to people who in 95 per cent. of the cases now lack the actual necessaries of life. I want the House to look beyond the figures to the people who are affected. There are in this country, I am sorry to say, even now nearly 1,250,000 people unemployed on the live registers, people for whom the country can find no work: and those of us who in our personal experience have known what it has been not to have the money to purchase a meal know exactly what that state of affairs means. When I tell the House that these people, in the majority of cases, cannot afford to spend id. per head of the family per meal, the House will have some idea of what privation means under this Act when it is in operation, and hon. Members will be able to judge what it means when the benefits are cut away during what is known as the three weeks' gap. I ask the House to give me the Second Reading and to give it me unanimously, believing that there can be no opposition to the proposal that I now make.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I welcome this Bill and I think that everybody sitting on this side of the House will welcome a Measure which is to get rid of the three weeks' gap, which undoubtedly to-day is not fulfilling the purpose for which it was first invented. It was first put in in order to prevent abuse and as an aid to administration. Provided that the administration of the Act does prevent abuse and is properly carried out, I think that this gap ought to be withdrawn. See how it now acts. If unemployment or employment were inter-
mittent and it were really necessary to urge people off the Unemployment Fund into work and there were work for them to go to, then indeed you might justify the three weeks gap, but we are not in that position at all. Unfortunately, there is a long continued period of unemployment, and the gap does not drive people from the Unemployment Fund into work, but merely drives them from the Unemployment Fund on to the guardians, and, as the Minister himself said, there are many men who will not go to the guardians under any conditions whatever. The very best of the men, whom it ought to be the desire of all to help, are the men who are being penalised to-day by this gap. There are many men who are not willing to go to the guardians but who, on the other hand, are willing to take the Unemployment Fund to which they have contributed and which, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, is miscalled the dole. There is no ignominy or stain of any sort for a man to go upon the Unemployment Fund when his circumstances so require. We are, and we always have been, in favour of contributory insurance. The only effect of the gap is to take a man from the contributory insurance scheme and put him on to the rates—a non-contributory insurance scheme so far as that man is concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I quite agree that we all pay rates, but so far as the man is concerned that particular benefit has not been contributed to by him except as a ratepayer. There is quite a difference in my view, if not in the view of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Lansbury)—

Mr.AYLES: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not realise that the men who are in receipt of relief from the guardians have to pay their rates to the guardians out of their relief?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I realise exactly what is the position of a ratepayer, and I was not in the least misstating it, but the average man, as the Minister himself said, draws a great distinction between taking relief from the guardians and drawing from the Unemployment Fund. I honour that distinction. If the hon. Member for Poplar does not, I understand his feeling, but I have a feeling quite different. I think there is a great deal of difference, and I am glad that that difference should be
emphasised. I want to call the attention of the House to the Bill itself. The title of the Bill is so drawn as to prevent any Amendment being possible by anyone either on this side of the House or on that. I remember when the Act of 1923, to which this Bill is an Amendment, was going through the House last March, the Socialist party, then sitting on this side of the House, complained that we had drawn the Financial Resolution in such a way that they could not make Amendments. That was not altogether true, because they did put down Amendments. They put down eight or ten in Committee and on Report. But the Government today has drawn this Bill in such a way that I defy anybody to introduce any Amendment at all. This Bill is merely for the repeal of Proviso 2 of Section 2. There are many other Amendments to the -Unemployment Insurance Act which are just as urgent as this one and which ought to be made. The difference between the Socialist party in Opposition and the Socialist party in Government is very curious. It was full of Amendments last year. There were eight or nine Amendments, and night after night, the House sat up till two or three in the morning listening to those Amendments. What happens to-day? The Bill is drawn in such a way that no one, not even anyone on the back benches opposite, can make any Amendment. The hon. Member for Poplar would have great difficulty if he wanted to pursue the Amendments to which he spoke and for which he voted last March. The right hon. Gentleman who is leading the House (Mr. Clynes) then went into the Lobby with the present Prime Minister in favour of an Amendment to reduce the waiting period from six to three days. That is a thing upon which a great deal can be said, but no one can put that Amendment down now.

Mr. SHAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to call his attention to the fact that I said it was better frankly to tell the House that this was merely one Proviso, and that I intended in the near future to submit a definite extending Bill.

SirL.WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am glad to hear that, but I understood this was brought in as a matter of great
urgency. This was not one of the urgent Amendments that was moved last March. The right hon. Gentleman found some still more urgent Amendments last March. 1 was calling attention to the fact that the liberty of the House was being taken from it, and that we are not to be allowed to move those Amendments which the Socialist party thought it was necessary to propose last March. I am sorry that our liberties are being taken from us, but I recognise that this Bill, so far as it goes, is a good Bill, and I shall support it.

Dr. MACNAMARA: May I be allowed to congratulate the Minister of Labour upon his appointment. His close and intimate acquaintance with the aims and aspirations of organised labour, of which we have had witness this afternoon, his large and kindly sympathy, and his shrewd Lancashire mother wit fit him admirably, if I may say so, for the great task which he has undertaken. I turn to the Bill and the original Act which we are now amending once more. It would be difficult to over-state the part which the Insurance Act has played in the grave and persistent unemployment through which we have been passing and are still passing. We have adapted it again and again to meet the varying needs of the situation. I came to the House six times and asked it to amend and adapt and extend the Act. My right hon. Friend Sir Montague Barlow came once. This is, therefore, the eighth time the House has been asked to amend and to adapt this great instrument. It will not be the last. The right hon. Gentleman has told us in advance that he is coming later with a more elaborate Measure. The Act is still there to bear, as I think, strongly and well the burden which we have placed upon it, and it is a remarkable tribute to insurance by the threefold co-operation of the employers, the workpeople and the State. I emphasise that because my right hon. Friend let drop a phrase in which he spoke of "what ought to have been 'purely national.'" I know he and his friends are in favour of a non-contributory scheme. I am aware of that, but might I with great respect suggest to them that they would be very well-advised—I know they will not take this from me—but I put it to them that in their desire for a non-contributory scheme they should
consider well. However, my right hon. Friend possibly put in that caveat to save the situation, and to keep the flag flying.

Mr. SHAW: May I just say that
 in vain is the fowler's net spread in the sight of the bird!

Dr. MACNAMARA: I only referred to the phrase, "it ought to be truly national," which my right hon. Friend put in as he went along. I hope it is not going to be a prophecy for the future. For I do hope that in any future alterations which he has promised, or any Amendments my right hon. Friend may suggest, he will not endeavour to destroy the contributory and three-fold co-operation of the employers, the workpeople, and the State. If he does, I think he will make a great mistake, and he will destroy the great instrument which has borne a terrific strain during a time of unprecedented—

Mr. PURCELL: On a point of Order. Are we discussing a non-contributory scheme or the Bill before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman was referring to some remarks made by the Minister of Labour.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will leave that point, which I merely took in passing and by way of warning, and come at once to the present Bill. As I say, those c3ncerned will be making a mistake if they go back upon a contributory scheme, though I doubt if
they will take any notice of what I say. The present Bill makes a comparatively small change in the Bill of last year which it proposes to amend. The. Act of last year provided 26 weeks' benefit, covenanted or uncovenanted, or both covenanted and uncovenanted, for the year from 18th October last to 15th October next—6 weeks' benefit in the 52 calendar weeks, with a proviso that when 12 weeks' uncovenanted benefit had been drawn there must be a gap of three weeks. Those who have drawn their uncovenanted benefit continuously have already gone through the gap. My right hon. Friend has made. the figure £00,000, while the Bill says £00,000.

Mr. SHAW: May I state that we are a week later with our Bill than we estimated, and that that accounts for the discrepancy.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Observe the benefit paid out under this scheme in a non-gap week to about £600,000. If you can abolish the three weeks' gap by something less than £200,000 a week, considerably less—say, £500,000 for the three weeks—then there are many people who must indeed have gone through the gap.

Mr. SHAW: That is clear.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Then this Bill will not help them, and there must be very many. For those who have got work since 18th of October, it will only make an exhaustion of the 26 weeks' benefit for all of the year come three weeks earlier, that is all. I am glad that my right hon. Friend told us that they are coming here with a further Amendment of the main Act of 1920 later this Session. Certainly they will in one respect have to provide for more than the 26 weeks' benefit which the Act of last year provided between 18th October, 1923, and 15th October, 1924. In regard to the gap itself, I should like to say a word or two. My right hon. Friend describes it as an injustice. As a matter of fact, it is the common form in the trade-union out-of-work benefit, though perhaps not entirely so. However, I will not stress that point, but when the main Act—with all these eight Amendments placed upon it—was passed in 1920 —or rather, before it was passed—there were three or four million people covered by insurance. We brought 12,000,000 into the permanent structure of the Act which provided, like all previous Acts, and like all trade union and friendly society out-of-work schemes, that before being entitled to benefit the workmen must have a certain number of contribution stamps on his card. That is the fundamental precedent to the receipt of benefit. The Act of 1920, increasing the number of insured persons from 4,000,000 to 12.000,000 brought 8,000,000 into insurance for the first time. They came in on the 8th November, 1920, at a time when unemployment was very bad. and was rapidly getting worse. Supposing we had left the Act in its permanent form with the, stamps in advance of the benefit, the Act would have been something approaching a mockery to the great bulk of those people who came in then for the first time, and under conditions which would have made it quite impossible for very many to have obtained the credit which,
as 1 have said, was universally laid down in the past as a condition precedent to the receipt of benefit. What happened? There was £22,000,000 in the funds collected during and after the War. They had insured before, and practically no one got anything out. I got this House, while maintaining the permanent side of the benefit after contribution, to add a great new emergency side under which—to put it in a sentence—benefit was made payable in a proper case in advance of the contribution. That is the uncovenanted side. My right hon Friend opposite talks about these people having paid. That is not quite correct. They will pay in due course when they have got back to work. I agree with him that the use of the word "dole" is wrong. Let me say I have never used it, and I have never allowed anyone to use it in my presence without challenging it. I was sorry to hear the Prime Minister fall into the same mistake on Tuesday and call a payment a "dole." The money in the fund of £22,000,000 enabled us to have this new emergency side, but it put a big strain on the structure of the scheme. It was an expedient.
had to come to Parliament to get borrowing powers for £30,000,000 and we carried on the uncovenanted benefit in advance of the contribution side as part of the whole scheme. But, of course, that put a very great strain upon it. We had to go very carefully, and with very great caution, and the gap was one of the expedients which, in the circumstances, we felt compelled to adopt to spread the money out so far as we could without putting undue strain on the scheme. After all, we must not forget that what we are administering is an insurance scheme and not a compassionate fund. I think we must all of us keep that constantly before There is another reason. Not only did we put this uncovenanted emergency side upon the fund but something else. We provided more weeks' benefit in the year. The Act of 1911 gave 15 weeks' benefit in the year. The Act of 1920 gave 15 weeks' benefit in the year. The Act of 1921 gave 26 weeks' benefit in the year, and the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Labour made it 44 weeks' benefit last year. Therefore the gap was frankly an expedient to spread the money out as far as we could. Further—and I will be quite
frank with the House in this—it was an endeavour to remind the recipient of the money that he must really bestir himself. [How. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh"] I say that I had better be quite frank in the matter, for I agree that, though it may be a good expedient in normal times, it is not much good telling a man to bestir himself in times like the present when there is no work.
The three weeks' gap and the 26 weeks' benefit under last year's Act did undoubtedly contemplate a condition of employment much more favourable than has emerged. Last year's experience was a very disappointing one in regard to employment. As a matter of fact, for seven solid months from 31st March onward, progress literally petered out. The figures did not improve in units, and even to-day —I do not know whether the House is aware of it, for the figures are not published in this form—but we have only to-day 176,600 persons less on our unemployed lists than we had this time last year. Therefore, whatever the Government or its supporters may say when they come to consider the Act of 1923, it will be in the light of present circumstances. The first consideration that we are promised is that the gap shall end. Further, I am quite confident of this, that my right hon. Friend will have to come before the House of Commons this Session and make provision for this year beyond the 26 weeks of the scheme of last year.
Happily, the finance of the Bill will stand it. I am sorry that Lord Banbury is not here. He and the hon. Member for the Mossley Division (Mr. Hopkinson), who took much the same view as he, were constantly telling us what they thought of the position. What of the, facts? We took power to borrow £30,000,000. The highest point actually attained in borrowing has been £15,000,000. To-day I am glad to say that that deficiency in the fund has got down to £12,000,000. That being so, and the whole borrowing being only £12,000,000 out of a possible £30,000,000, I think no one will doubt the capacity of the Act to hear this small additional charge.
I have only one snore thing to say. After all, money relief must be found for these poor people if they cannot get work. But the main and outstanding objective
which everybody ought to keep in view is that work should be found. They are quite honest and sincere when they say that it is work they want and prefer, but cannot get it. Last Tuesday the Prime Minister referred to Government aid in the direction of finding work. His observations were very sketchy and left a very great deal indeed to be desired. However, we shall later in this Sitting have an opportunity of discussing the Money Resolution, which will be a beginning in that direction. My view of that problem is that it is to find work for these workless. I may have the opportunity of expressing what I think of this matter when we come to the Money Resolution.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I have listened to the statement made by the Minister of Labour, and I have also listened to the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara). I am glad to notice that they all seem to be taking a new view of the gap idea, which has been the pernicious principle obtaining in previous Unemployment Insurance Bills which have passed this House. I think most of us who have been in the House for a few years can recall the almost impassioned utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell in defending the principle of the gap, telling us how absolutely necessary it was that such a particular principle should be placed within the Bill. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell said that the Prime Minister had made a rather sketchy statement on this subject. May I point out that there are poor people who have been unemployed for two-and-a-half and three years who, after hearing the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell, believe that they left very much to be desired so far as they were concerned.
The gap system was one of the outstanding objections to the last Bill, particularly when we have had men anxious to get work, and it has now been admitted by the Minister of Labour and hon. Members on both sides of the House that men are unable to find work because of the
great depression in trade. There is one curious thing which arises at the present time, and it is with a view to getting some promise and to draw the attention of the Ministry of Labour to one or two of these points that I have risen to address the House. I have always been against the gap, and I have no apologies to make in supporting this Bill. I have protested against the gap in the previous Parliament, and I have always pointed out how obnoxious the principle was. To-day there is a system which is growing up, and, indeed, has grown up already, in the Employment Exchanges in their administration which brings in a principle even more obnoxious to-day than the principle of the gap, and that is where you find men who, by rights, are entitled to what is called uncovenanted benefit, having gone through the period of covenanted benefit, because they may not have the necessary number of stamps upon their book to qualify them for covenanted benefit, when they go before the unemployment committees to have their cases considered to put them upon uncovenanted benefit, are sent a pink form, and there are various reasons given on this form why the claim for benefit has been refused.
In most of the cases in which benefit is refused on the pink form, four of the reasons are scored out and the one reason which seems to be unanimous in the eyes of the unemployment committee is the reason that the committee are not satisfied that you are genuinely seeking whole-time employment. In addition to the pink form, I have here two cases I have taken out of many I have received. One is the case of a man who had been 40 years employed with one firm who was thrown out of employment in 1921. With such a record of employment with one shipbuilding firm on the Clyde, that man receives a pink form saying that he is not entitled to benefit because he is not seeking whole-time employment. I have another case of a man who was for 30 years a member of the Boilermakers' Society, a first-class member, who, together with his apprenticeship, had been 35 years in one employment, and he also received a pink form. Those men are not put upon the
gap.
The gap for them is simply an insult, and to tell them they are work-shy and not genuinely seeking employment is a deliberate insult to men who are con-
scientious workers, as is clearly shown by their record of employment. I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to cases of that character. There are too many men being told that they are not entitled to unemployment benefit for this particular reason. I could produce hundreds of these pink forms if necessary, and I am sure any hon. Member representing an industrial constituency can get hundreds of them if he wishes to do so. I hope the Minister of Labour is going to put a stop to this obnoxious doctrine which is being carried out throughout the country. While it is part of one of the previous Acts that that is the reason for refusing men unemployment benefit, I am sure that it is now being stretched to the extreme by Unemployment Committees, and they are putting forward that particular reason given on the pink forms in cases where such a reason is not applicable at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: These matters do not appear to me to be relevant to this Bill. They are matters of administration, which should be discussed in Committee of Supply when the unemployment Vote is put down. I notice there is a Vote down for Thursday on this question, and it will be for the Chairman to say then whether or not the Vote
covers this subject. These are general administration points, which ought not to be discussed until the legislation is before us.

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not wish to go outside your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but two Members sitting on the Front Bench and a Member of the Liberal party have already dealt with questions of administration, and naturally, this being an amending Bill, I thought we were being allowed a wider latitude than was usually the case. That was why I was touching upon those points. So far as the gap is concerned which it is now proposed to remove, while it has been a grave hardship upon those to whom it applied in the past, many of the Unemployment Committees, instead of putting the men on the gap, are now treating them by their administrative powers in this particular manner thus ruling them outside of benefit altogether.

Mr. SPEAKER: I only interrupted the hon. Member when I gathered that he was going to deal with a number of administrative points. That was why I intervened.

Mr. MACLEAN: That was the only point of administration with which I wanted to deal. I only wish to show that this principle was not applied in the same manner as in the past, because the Unemployment Committees were using part of a previous Act to rule them out altogether, without putting them on to the gap. This practice. was ruling them, not only out of benefit in this way, but also out of relief from the guardians and the parish councils in Scotland, because they had to produce the pink form. The parish councils in Scotland and the boards of guardians in England write to the Employment Exchanges to find out whether an applicant has been refused benefit, and whether the reason is because he is not genuinely seeking employment, because they are not bound to give relief to men who are not looking for work.
I submit that the Minister of Labour should take this question into consideration with as deep a concern as he is now taking up the question of the gap. The gap has had a certain amount of publicity, but this particular matter has not had the same amount of publicity at all, although it is dealing a harder blow at those individuals, because the gap lasts for three weeks. These men have been ruled out for months at a time in this way. This is a matter which I hope is going to have the attention of the Minister of Labour. I am glad to know that the spokesman for the Conservative party favours this proposal, although there were mutterings and rumblings against the removal of the gap. I take it from what has been said that we are going to have an agreed House in regard to the removal of the gap. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) after his experience in piloting Bills through this House knows the temper of hon. Members, and in the past he has done his fair share of opposition to us when we wore pleading on behalf of the unemployed worker, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has now come to grace. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the couplet:
While the lamp holds on to burn
The greatest sinner may return.
I am glad the lamp is still burning and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell has returned.
Seeing that we have unanimity on this question I hope those people who have had to be placed on the gap will now feel that this House, whatever view may exist of general politics, is going to do a generous act towards those people by removing the gap, thus making it possible for them to carry on during the period of unemployment. I trust the Minister of Labour will take into consideration the removal of that obnoxious principle, and find time to introduce a Bill dealing with this matter. I hope he will send out instructions to the Employment Exchanges advising them to be very careful in regard to the cases they are ruling out of benefit on the grounds I have alluded to in the pink form.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I think it only right to say at the outset that I cannot agree that this is a good Bill. I know that whenever we approach the question of unemployment in this House there is always a suggestion that hon. Members take the view that a Bill for the relief of unemployment in any form must necessarily be good, and that any hon. Member rising to oppose it must be an evil-disposed person. In my judgment this is a had Bill for the reason which I have given on three or four previous occasions in this House, namely, that it will tend to continue the present chronic state of unemployment. Whenever a 13111 in its title is even remotely connected with unemployment, or the relief of unemployment, we are necessarily driven to consider the relation of that Bill to the state of unemployment in the country. I will only make a very few remarks in order to deal with the arguments submitted by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). He said that these pink forms are constantly being returned and no relief given because the applicant has not been genuinely seeking for employment. Is it not a fact that these committees have discharged their duties well? Do they not make an honourable attempt to find out whether or not men do seek employment? I am sure the Minister will go with me in this: that these committees do—as far as it is humanly possible and making allowance for human fallibilities—discharge their duties as well as any other committees that are appointed. Is it not reasonable to suppose that there is a great deal of
truth—when the majority of the forms are returned as stated on the ground that the applicants have not been genuinely seeking employment—in the suggestion that by filling this gap you will be perpetuating the desire not to get employment but to get the sustenance allowance?

Mr. MARLEY: I should like to ask the hon. Member—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. The hon. Member can ask the hon. Member who is in possession if he will give way.

Mr. MARLEY: The hon. Member is in the privileged position of representing a constituency in which there is a very small amount of unemployment, and when he makes the assertion that men prefer to take the dole first instead of seeking work he is taking advantage of his peculiar position, and he ought not to make such a suggestion in this House. I have had the privilege of opposing the hon. Member, and I am sure that the attitude he is taking up is not the attitude of the hulk of his constituents.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is doing more than merely interrupting; he is now making a speech.

Mr. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Member does not know that I am not speaking for any one of my constituents on this problem, but I am speaking as the result of my personal experience and of my electioneering experience. I fought on two occasions the seat now represented in this House by the Member for Govan.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: And if you had fought it a third time you would not have been here.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is entirely a matter of opinion.

Mr. BALFOUR: I wish to submit to the Minister for Labour in all seriousness—and Ns-bother he agrees with my reasons or not, I am sure he will admit that the only matter of concern for us in connection with this Bill is whether it is merely a temporary expedient or is ultimately to provide a solution of the unemployment problem. if he regards it as a temporary palliative, if he will tell me he is not looking on this as the first stage of a wider solution which is to be set on foot, then I will say to him, "Go on with your temporary experiments once again, and, if it
succeeds, I will support it. But if it fails, then on a future occasion I shall refer to what I have said to-day." I remember telling the late Minister for Labour (Dr. Macnamara) that by his policy he was making unemployment more probable—that he was building up more and more unemployment. The facts as they exist to-day show that that has been the result of the policy. If this gap is to be removed, you will tempt large numbers of the less energetic men to rely on relief instead of on work. What I want to do is to drive men to reply upon their own labour and not to rely on relief, by whomsoever contributed.

Mr. MARLEY: Threepence halfpenny an hour.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: As one who has had a tragic opportunity of inquiring into the effects of this gap on a particularly large scale, I have been led to a conclusion very different from that arrived at by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour), and I should like to say that I am giving my unqualified support to the present Measure. I hope it is going to be the beginning of a complete divorce between the unemployment problem and Poor Law relief. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), I should like to point out that for some time past, even before the gap came into operation, in certain towns or in certain industries where men were engaged under the barbaric system of a stand or market, the influence of the gap never could operate at all. Men never had any opportunity when they received the pink forms. They were unable to convince the Committee, for there was only their own word to justify the statement that they were genuinely seeking full-time employment. I am hoping that this is a beginning of a separation of unemployment insurance from Poor Law relief. While one would like to see men compelled to seek for work, the gap is not an expedient for doing that. It is only their sense of dignity and the wish to supply the needs of their wives and families that compels them to seek work, and the gap can never be any substitute for that. The gap has accelerated the dispersal of savings and the breaking up of homes, because a large number of men will not
accept Poor Law relief. I have made inquiries into this matter from Employment Exchanges, Poor Law officials and other available authorities, and they tell me that there are fewer work-shy men to-day than ever. Pressure has gradually driven those who were—and there is a certain number always—work-shy, to seek work. The connection between unemployment insurance and the Poor Law has been a constant source of irritation, and nothing has added more to the distress of the unemployed than the uncertainty as to the gap generally. I welcome this small Bill, especially as the Minister has foreshadowed that he intends to make it more complete. I welcome it as one small step towards building up a complete system of security which will enable our workers to give of their best without the haunting fear of unemployment.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: I do not wish to unduly prolong the discussion on this Bill, but I rise wholeheartedly to support it in the form in which it has been introduced by the Minister for Labour. Unlike the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) I represent one of the largest industrial constituencies in the country, one which has suffered under the largest percentage of unemployment, and there is no man and no Member who has represented any constituency under such conditions but will look with favour on the proposals contained in this Bill. I want to say, further, that I am delighted to know that it is only to be part of an extended review of the Unemployment Act, 1920. I would particularly like to draw the Minister's attention to Section 81 of that Act, because it, is it acting with undue hardship on men out of employment at the present time. I would welcome his assurance that in the early future this matter may receive the attention of the Minister. I am glad there has been an endeavour to face the true significance of this Act and to get rid of the word "dole." I notice that as late as yesterday a very prominent cleric, near my own constituency, has been desperately denouncing the dole, but I should like to point out that, with all its defects, since it has been in existence it has saved the country from a great deal of industrial unrest, and has given many thousands of families necessary sustenance in times of extreme need.
5.0. P.M.
I whole-heartedly support the principle of Unemployment Insurance, and I hope
to see the day when it reaches greater perfection. With regard to the non-benefit period, I believe that when the gap was originally instituted it was a sound principle. I believe that it not only safeguarded the Insurance Fund, but also safeguarded the, contributors to that Fund. Furthermore, I think it was founded on a firm and sure basis, because it was founded on a basis of normal employment. I am sure that the promoters of the original Bill took into consideration the fact that over a long period, possibly half a century, the normal unemployment had only been something like 4 per cent., and that, when the peak periods of that time did arrive, they only extended for a short time. Those conditions have been entirely wiped out by the unparalleled and prolonged state of unemployment that we have to-day, which has upset the whole basis of the former Act. Therefore, 1 am whole-heartedly in favour of the wiping out of the gap period. The majority of men cannot find work. I have been intimately associated with the whole operation of the Act for some considerable time, and have had dozens, nay, hundreds, of cases through my hands, and I have more than once represented before the Court of Referees men who have been in difficulties. I know that, while men are told to look, and have been looking, for work, it is a fact that, in the case of a shipbuilding industry such as that of the town which 1 represent, where we have had 20,000 men out of employment, it was absolutely impossible either for the men to find work, for the Exchanges to find work for them, or for their employers to give them work. I never could see why these men, because of that disability, due to no fault of their own, should be compelled to seek aid through the guardians from a fund that was contributed in a dissimilar manner from the one whereby they should receive direct support. For these reasons I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill, and I trust that at some future date we may have a further additon to it that will remove the anomalies and disabilities under which many workers are suffering to-day.

Mr. CLARKE: I desire to claim the indulgence of the House in expressing my
approval of this Measure, which has for its object the removal of what I consider to be one of the cruellest provisions ever in force for increasing and intensifying the poverty of those already suffering under unemployment. I have difficulty in understanding the outlook of hon. Members who tell us that a gap is necessary as a driving force in the case of men who are unwilling to look for work. Among the million and a quarter unemployed there may be a few, possibly a number, who, for various reasons, are not desirous of getting work, but I venture to suggest that in the majority of cases they are victims of the system itself, which has created physical and moral conditions such as those which have been depicted. When we come to consider the great number of the unemployed, it is difficult to understand how anyone can believe that men or women who have been used to working to earn their own living, as it has been decreed, by the sweat of their brow, should be content to be the recipients of £1 a week, if they are married, and ls. for each child, rather than taking honest work in order to keep them independent and enable them to earn their living and that of their wives and children. It is an insult to the intelligence of the ordinary unemployed workman, who knows that there are a million and a quarter, including women, who are unable to find employment, who are denied the right to work, and are, because of that, denied the right to live. The suggestion that the gap is in some way an incentive to spur them on and compel them to look for work is an insult to the intelligence of the workmen, and, frankly, I feel that it is also an insult to the intelligence of hon. Members who sit on this side of the House.
In thinking of the gap system we have to visualise a continued strain of poverty and privation, not only as regards its effect on the workman himself, but as regards its effect on the women-folk and the children. The children are suffering from poverty and privation, and one day the father has to go home and tell them that he has arrived at the period of the gap, and that there is absolutely nothing for him to bring home to give them even subsistence to enable them to live. It seems to me unthinkable that any men or women should be found who would prefer to get their living under conditions like that, rather than take
work that would enable them to earn their living independently of any such means. The Minister of Labour has told us what parish relief means in many instances, and that men and women feel that it is a stigma, though why they should do so I have difficulty in understanding. Their necessity, and the necessity of their women-folk and children, should be to them the justification for their action. They view it, however, as a stigma, and yet are ultimately driven to seek parish relief; and then we have big-hearted men on the boards of guardians, such as we have on the Poplar Board of Guardians, who make up their minds that at any cost the men and the women and children have to be fed, irrespective of the consequences. We have all these things reflected in this system of unemployment insurance and the system of the gap.
On the other hand, the gap system has been accentuated by the issue of Circular 51, followed by the refusal of education authorities to give to the children that necessary sustenance which they were getting in the schools prior to its issue. We have to remember that among the unemployed there are 250,000 women, or thereabouts; 10 per cent. of all the insured women are unemployed. Half of them are under 25 years of age, one-fourth are between the ages of 20 and 24, and one-sixth are from 18 to 19 years of age. These women are compelled to exist—it is difficult to understand how they do it—on 12s. per week, and then comes the period of the gap, and one has greater difficulty in understanding how they are able to tide over it. One can appreciate the temptations that beset their path in circumstances such as we can readily see arising out of this gap system. Because of these things, I feel sure that every hon. Member in this House will agree that, at least, we should make a beginning and get rid of this iniquitous business of the gap. I feel that it is a reflection upon us to allow it to continue. I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman's hope will be realised, and that we shall have an unanimous vote in favour of the abolition of the gap system, so that at least some little gleam of sunshine may be brought into the lives of the men and women who have been unemployed during these years.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member who has just spoken
will allow me to congratulate him upon what, if I may say so, was a very successful maiden speech. There can be few Members of this House who will take any exception to a single word that he has uttered. I speak as chairman of an unemployment committee in connection with an Exchange which has watched the operation of this Act for some considerable period, and I agree that the
time has now arrived when we should take the step that is suggested by the Minister of Labour this afternoon. It is not, of course, at all unusual, in a normal condition of matters, to have a gap of this kind. If one looked at the rules of most of the large friendly societies of this country, and, for that matter, of a large number of trade unions, one would easily see that various steps of this nature have been taken in the past, in order that there might be what is called a legitimate check in matters of this kind, and one could illustrate that still further by a good many other rules of a similar character. Therefore, in a normal state-of affairs, and human nature being what it is, one could not say that a step of this kind is a harsh or a cruel one; but to-day, obviously, a normal condition of that kind cannot operate, and I believe that a large number of the friendly societies themselves, and a large number of trade unions, are waiving a good many of the regulations and rules that used to, obtain when things were, as I am glad to think, very different from what they are t o-day.
I quite share the view, from my observation of a very large industrial area in London, that there is nothing to be gained, whatever advantage there may. have been in the past, by imposing check of this kind, and I am very glad to see this step taken. I hope, however, that no Members of the House will regard this as by any means an important step, or, perhaps, the most necessary step to be taken in connection with Unemployment Insurance. I think the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) was right when he hinted that the reason for this step being taken now was, he supposed, that this was, perhaps, the most advertised difficulty that ought to be put right in connection with Unemployment Insurance. I suppose that that is why the Minister of Labour has introduced this very small Bill this afternoon. I
was much interested to hear from his preliminary statement that he had another big Bill, apparently, which was going to put a great many other matters right. I should like to hear a little more about those proposals this afternoon, because it is very important that the House should know exactly what is going to be proposed. I cannot conceive, for instance, why one Bill should not be introduced for the whole subject. It seems to me that there will be a considerable waste of Parliamentary time in introducing two Bills, especially if the one that is to follow is, as is apparently the case, almost ready.
Many hon. Members who have had some experience of past Parliaments know the difficulty of thus introducing two Bills. This Bill may be passed—I hope it win; but, if another Bill is going to be introduced by the Minister of Labour dealing, as I hope it will, with far more urgent matters than this, what will happen? We have the Budget, we have all the Financial Resolutions and matters of that kind, and I believe that it will be some months before this larger Bill will really make its appearance, or if it makes its appearance it will be a very considerable time before it becomes law. I share in the protest£—I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull, who always stands it matters of this kind irrespective of party policies, will join—at the manner in which the Bill has been drafted. It is perfectly true that it is drafted in such a way that you cannot introduce a single Amendment of any moment to it. I had a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Member opposite who interrupted the Prime Minister, and referred to the question of the allowance to children. There is a good deal to be said for that—I suppose there is something to be said against it—but the hon. Member will be in this difficulty. He will not be able to introduce that Amendment, for instance. If ever there has been a carefully drafted Bill, with the object, apparently, of avoiding Amendments, this is the Bill. I invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull to endeavour to draft some Amendments of substance to the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have done so
already.

Sir K. WOOD: Even he, with all his ingenuity, will probably have them refused by the Chair. I shall watch events with great interest, and I shall wish him well. I have no doubt the Amendments are very good ones, and I will gladly consult with him as to whether I can support them. The fact, however, remains that this Bill is so designed that matters equally urgent cannot be introduced. It reminds me of past Governments. I thought we were going to make a fresh start, but the Bill is so designed that we cannot introduce Amendments, and we are promised that a larger Bill—when it will be brought forward and passed I do not know—will deal with a good many other matters.
There is a question 1 should like to put to the Under-Secretary for Labour in connection with the financial provisions of the Bill. The Minister of Labour has stated that it will cost about £500,000. 1 for one, and I dare say many others, would like to know the exact position in which the Unemployment Insurance Funds stand. I have looked up the last figures so far as they were presented to the last House, and on 2nd June last, as I understand it, above the normal contribution which the Exchequer had made to the Unemployment insurance Fund, they made an additional advance of £25,000,000. I do not complain of that, and I do not criticise, because, obviously, with the tremendous strain on the Fund which the last few years of dreadful unemployment have brought, one must anticipate that extra demands must be made, but the House ought to know, and it is a wise thing that they should know, exactly where we stand and what this additional sum will bring with it, and what arrangements have been made in that connection. I do not put this question forward in criticism of the Act, because I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) with reference to the Act. I regard the Unemployment Insurance Act as a very excellent piece of work, and I think it is going to remain a permanent part of the law of the country. No doubt in future an enquiry ought to be held—I am sorry we have heard nothing about that—as to the exact relationship of Unemployment Insurance and National insurance and matters of that kind, because I believe a good deal of money could be sated if there was a proper
enquiry and steps were taken to co-ordinate the various Insurance Funds that now operate. If we were able to co-ordinate we should save a good deal of money and should probably have a good deal more with which to assist the very many people who are suffering so much.
May I say a final word in relation to the matter generally? It is true that the men and women who are out of employment to-day would much prefer to apply under the Unemployment Insurance Fund than to seek Poor Law relief, but there is a further thing they desire far more than going to the Insurance Fund, and that is work. The vast majority of the people who are on this fund—I have had some opportunity of observing a good many of them — undoubtedly require work. I do not think any hon. Member would say everyone is perfect, and that there is not a certain number of people who would perhaps prefer to go on to unemployment insurance for the rest of time, but that does not apply to the vast majority of the people. What they really want is work, and I am anxious to impress upon the Minister of Labour and the Government that this House is awaiting with the greatest possible interest the proposals for obtaining work. I say that with all the more confidence because of statements of the Prime Minister and members of the Government during and after the Election. The Prime Minister, for instance, said:
Labour would take office, because in defiling with unemployment they believed they had a programme and a power that no other party posseesed.

HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"

Sir K. WOOD: I am glad to hear those encouraging cheers from the benches opposite, because it makes me all the more anxious to know when these proposals are going to be put forward. I have certainly not heard them yet. As I understand the present policy, it is a continuation of the old policy. That is not what the country and the House has been promised, and I share the view of the Colonial Secretary, who some little time after the Prime Minister had spoken, on 8th January, at Leeds, said:
 There will be no triumph for Labour until we have solved the unemployment problem.
That is an excellent sentiment, and there is a better one still, which I will quote. The right hon. Gentleman said:
 We are here to say that the problem is going to be solved by Labour "—
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull will shudder when he hears the rest:
and by Labour alone.
We, on these benches, and I am sure hon. Members opposite, invite the early presentment of these proposals, because whilst the Bill is a good one, it is a very small one. I do not think any hon. Member in any part of the House can say much more about it than that. On behalf of a large number of people who are unemployed, and who have read these statements in the papers, and are hoping that these promises will be fulfilled, while we agree with the Bill, we ask the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister at an early date to present those proposals which are going to solve the unemployment problem.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member has referred to me several times. Indeed, he seemed to address most of his speech to me. He surprised and delighted me, as did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) when, following the same line of reasoning, they complained that the Bill was so drawn that they could not move any substantial Amendments to it, and they led me to suppose that if only they had been continued a little longer in office, they would have made these Amendments, I presume, to increase the allowance to children and all the rest of it. All I have to say to that is that it i rank hypocrisy. The hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) never used to stand up on this side of the House and make speeches like that. His complaint now is that the Labour Government is only bringing in this little Bill, and they ought to have brought in much more and done very much more. That apparently is also the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester. It is hollow and it is nonsense. They were in power with a clear majority. They could have done all these things. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) said a great many men would be encouraged not to seek for work. What happens actually is that, through this gap, men, who by no stretch of the imagination a few years ago could have been considered the sort of men who would go to the guardians,
are forced now to go to the guardians. In my own constituency the guardians tell me they are having to relieve men through this very gap, though they are not at all the kind of men they are used to dealing with—men who have been in skilled employment for many years, and who own houses—and this small reform is long overdue.
May I address myself especially to the hon. Lady who represents the Office of Labour on the Treasury Bench? In my constituency, from which I have just returned, and where I have been consulting with the dockers—[Laughter].I have a perfect right to consult them. I wish the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot would occasionally go amongst the dockers. There are large parties of casual workers who will not get any benefit from this Bill at all. They suffer from another sort of gap altogether, and that is the gap of men who are employed for a few days here and a few days there in the week. Take the case of a man who goes to the docks for work, and cannot get in on Monday and cannot get in on Tuesday. If he is offered half a day's work on Wednesday he will get less than if he shirks it and draws the unemployment money. They have to go three days before they can get anything at all. I assure the hon. Lady this is a very burning question amongst these men. They have, owing to the exigencies of the time, to live from hand to mouth, and what they want is this. If a man is genuinely seeking work and cannot get it at the docks for a day, he wants something to carry over to the next day—these men depend on what they get day by day—to keep him in health and strength to look for a fresh job the next morning. Further, if a man is employed for 18 days continuously, he has to be six days unemployed before he can get anything at all, and the same thing applies there. There is a third point, and that is that if a man is employed for half a day only—he only gets five shillings, or thereabouts—that half-day counts nothing. If he is employed half a day the next day, that counts nothing. He can be employed for any number of half-days, and then if he gets two days' blank with no work at all, he can draw nothing to carry him on. I assure the hon. Lady this is a burning question amongst these casual labourers
in Hull, and that is the sort of gap I hope her Department is paying attention to and will remedy. The Bill does not help them in any way at all. It is not in the Bill. I suggest that two half-days should count as one day. Furthermore, I suggest that they should be able to get some assistance at night, in order that they may have a bite of food to carry on until the next day, when they have not been able to get any work. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour would do that, she would be even more loved by the casual labourers than she is at the present time.
This Bill, 1 suppose, is a perfect example of doing something by a stroke of the pen. It is very short and it removes a grievance. It amends Proviso (2) of Section 2 of the 1923 Act. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, when she replies, to cast her eye over Section 4, Sub-section (1) of the same Act. By taking two strokes of the pen instead of one stroke she could have increased the 1s. allowance for each child to 2s. 6d.

Sir K. WOOD: It cannot be incorporated in this Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My hon. Friend says that it cannot be incorporated. My complaint is that it has not been included. I do not complain that the Labour party has not made a new Heaven and a new earth in four weeks, but I do say that if by one stroke of the pen they can remove the anomaly regarding the gap, they could by another stroke of the pen do something in regard to the allowance for the child. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that next week she will bring in another little Bill. I do not want to delay the passage of this excellent Bill. I can assure the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour) that we understand his position, and we think it is an honest difference of opinion. I like his honesty. I suppose the fact of the matter is that, representing Hampstead, he is voicing the opinion of a great many of his constituents, who do not know how the workers live. I wish the hon. Member would accompany the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) down to the docks occasionally, and look into these cases. I can assure hon. Members on the Treasury Bench that these casual workers are taking their advent to office with great calmness, and
they expect a good deal from them. They will be disappointed, because every Government disappoints them. When my own party conies to power, I suppose we shall disappoint them. There are certain little, simple, legislative Acts that could be brought in now, and I hope they will be brought in. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to try to do something at a very early date to remove still further the anomalies that exist. If we are told that the finance of the Act cannot stand it, then there is a simple remedy, and that is to increase the contribution made by the State to the Fund from one-fourth to one-third in order to keep the Fund solvent. In conclusion, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Clarke) on his very excellent maiden speech.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I wish to say a few words to welcome this Bill. It does not, however, go far enough. It is quite obvious to those of us who are engaged in industry that the Government is bound to tackle this unemployment question very soon. There are industrial disputes going on, and we shall have questions arising as to the position of men who are not directly engaged in these disputes and who have been refused all benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, because they work in the same factory or at the same dock where the industrial dispute is going on. That question has been debated in this House for nearly 15 years. Two years ago a Committee was set up by the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Alacnamara) to report on the matter. I have been out of the House a year, and on coming back I heard the Minister of Labour, in reply to one of my hon. Friends, say that that Committee has not yet reported. It is a disgrace that the Committee has not reported. That question must be settled, because the condition of the worker to-day is very serious. Instead of mending, trade is going worse, and those of us who are engaged in industry are beginning to despair about trade ever mending so that our unemployed may be absorbed.
I should like to know the position of the single man. The single man is at a disadvantage compared with the married man. It is all very well to say that a man who is on the gap can go to the guardians and be relieved. I know it is
the duty of the guardians to relieve all necessitous cases, but when the man is single and he goes to the guardians, they do not give him outdoor relief, in many cases, but order him to go into the workhouse. Only the other day I met a friend of mine who complained bitterly about that provision. He said, "For 30 years I have been working, and I have never been in the workhouse, and you know that I will never go into the workhouse, and I am starving." He had been denied all unemployment benefit. That is a condition of things which will have to be altered very quickly. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has referred to the children's allowance of ls. I say, with all due respect to the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell, that that allowance was a disgrace to any Bill. Those of us who keep dogs pay 2s. 6d. for the keep of a dog per week. It is not fair to expect a workman to keep his child for Is. a week. T ask the Minister of Labour to get on with his complete Bill. This House is today in sympathy with the desire to re-arrange all the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. So far as we are concerned on these benches, we will give the utmost support to the Minister of Labour in order that he may bring in a Bill which will once for all make our legislation on this subject a humane Measure.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I am at a disadvantage in having heard only part of the Debate, but what I have heard has been exceedingly encouraging. The criticism has been rather in the nature of criticism of what, the Bill lacks, than of what the Bill contains, and I am, therefore, confident that I can appeal to the House to give it unanimously a Second Reading. I am happy to feel that when the main Bill is introduced, there will be a volume of support from all quarters of the House, as indicated by speeches from both sides to-day. There is a simple reason why this Bill is confined to one Clause. It is because we are now in another gap period, and we do not want a single week more to go by in which people are compelled to seek relief from the Poor Law. It was felt that if the Bill dealt with any other subject, it might
take a longer time to get through, and in the interests of the community as a whole we felt that the stigma of pauperism should be removed at the earliest possible moment from those people who are now approaching Poor Law relief. For that reason the Bill is confined to a single Clause, and I appeal to the House now to give it a Second Reading.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Member say anything about the question of the casual workers?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is, obviously, not possible for me to say anything about that subject now, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that everything that he has said will be received sympathetically by the Minister of Labour when he is preparing the larger Bill.

Mr. REMER: I think it will be the view of everyone who has listened to the speech of the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that she deserves to be congratulated upon the lucid way in which she has put forward her ease and also for the brevity of her speech. In the latter respect she has set an example to the Front Ministerial Bench which we hope will prevent occupants of that bench from speaking at too great length. My experience of this House during the last five years has been that when a Minister rises to speak he speaks at least for half an hour and very often occupies a full hour, with the result that back bench Members do not get an opportunity to speak.
While I recognise the reason which the Parliamentary Secretary gives for the Bill not being wider, I am a little disappointed that she has not indicated when the new Bill in its wider scope will be brought forward. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) used very harsh words about Members on this side of the House. He accused us of rank hypocrisy. We all know that hon. Members opposite are judges of hypocrisy. During the last General Election they declared that Socialism was the greatest danger there was in the country, but when they had been elected they were so hypocritical as to put a Socialist Government into power.
The hon. and gallant Member, instead of turning to these benches, ought to have turned to the Labour party and addressed his remarks about hyprocrisy to them; that would have been more in keeping with the facts of the case, because it is well known that the reason why this Bill has been framed in this way is to prevent Amendments being put down, either from this side or from the other side, to extend the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned the dock worker. He is not the only Member of this House who has a knowledge of the dock worker. I claim to have a knowledge of that class of worker. There is a great deal in what the hon. and gallant Member said on this subject. I have the greatest possible sympathy with anybody who works in a casual way as these men do, and I maintain that some method must be adopted for dealing with that kind of unemployment, because it is the most demoralising form of unemployment that exists at the present time.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) is not present, because I should have liked to refer to what he said on the question of unemployment insurance generally. He was in charge of the Ministry of Labour when the Unemployment Insurance Bill was introduced. At that time we all realised that it was a great experiment, and we knew that the. Bill was not perfect, and that it would require alteration. One of the difficulties in regard to this question at the present time is that we have had one small Bill here and another small Bill there, until it is very difficult for the man in the street to find out how the law stands in regard to the matter, and it is a constant source of irritation. We need a comprehensive Measure to put the matter on a better basis, so that we may get rid of all these misunderstandings. One further trouble has been caused by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). When he was Prime Minister he took a holiday at Gairloch, and be was chased over the hills of Scotland by the London mayors, who were determined that a deputation should reach him. He came to this House with an emergency Measure and introduced a large scheme of unemployment relief. That was the first tinkering with the subject. We are going to have now a
second tinkering with it, and probably there will be three or four altogether. Though I have the greatest sympathy with this particular Bill, I do feel that it is necessary to get all these unemployment insurance schemes upon a better and broader basis. I could not help smiling when I heard some of the speeches this afternoon. I have here a quotation from the Minority Report of the great Poor Law Commission which sat from 1905 to 1909, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was one of the members of that Commission who signed the Minority Report. That Report stated:
If the community will not restrict itself to relieving persons at the crisis of their destitution—and this is a necessary condition of any Poor Law or of any destitute authority, whatever its name—the community cannot, without grave financial danger and still graver danger, depart from the principle of 1834. However unpopular may be the doctrine, it is still true that if destitute persons are to be given curative and restorative treatment without deterrent conditions and without any stigma of pauperism, you are constantly increasing the number of persons who, unless they are in some way prevented from sinking into destitution, come in and out of the Poor Law as suits their convenience, to their own grave demoralisation and at a ruinous cost to the nation.
For the past few years this question of unemployment has been dealt with by tinkering with the subject, and if the Government bring forward any business like, scheme to get rid of the difficulties with which we are faced, I can say for myself, and I believe for the great bulk of those on this side of the House that it will receive our warmest support.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. ALLEN: It may be considered impertinent on my part, as coming' from Northern Ireland, to take any part in this debate, but I do it first because I believe that this Bill has been introduced for reasons of common humanity and that it is the duty of every Member to support anything in the interest of humanity—in my part of the country our workers suffer severely because of the existence of this gap which it is proposed to remove—and my second reason for interposing is that all Measures passing through this House are taken note of, particularly by the Minister of Labour in our Northern Parliament, and are applied almost immediately to the situation as it exists in Northern Ireland.
I am glad to say that our Minister of Labour in Northern Ireland is a man of great broad sympathies, who is keenly interested in the working man, and whatever Bills are passed in this House are immediately taken up by him and transferred to the Statute Book in Northern Ireland, and I am certain that he will lose no time in following the action of the Minister of Labour on the present occasion. 1 can assure the House that a great many people in Northern Ireland will welcome this Measure, for though it may be an indirect step, so far as they are concerned, it will eventually reach them. One of the great causes of complaint and distress in my part of the country is that when these people are drawing what is commonly known as the dole—and no matter how we try to escape the name I am afraid that people will continue to use it—after they have been drawing the money for some time it suddenly ceases, and they do not know where to get any more. I am glad that the extension of unemployment benefit to these people is one of the first acts of this Government.
The Minister of Labour referred—and it had been referred to frequently in this House and in other places—to the amount of £600,000 which has to be made up, and he said that part of it will come from the workers themselves, and part from contributions by the employers, and he gave us to understand that the remainder will come from the State. But I think that that is a delusion which is shared by a great many people, because we know that the State as a State has no money except what it collects from the people of this country, so that the £600,000 not only comes from the contributions of the employers and of the employed who are engaged in industry, but the remainder also comes from the same people, because of the taxes which they pay. So that the entire contribution of £600,000 comes directly or indirectly from the people themselves. I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting this Bill. I am very glad that the Government did not wait until a larger Bill could be introduced, because then it would probably have been months before these people could have had this miserable gap filled. I am certain that there will be no vote on this subject, and that the Second Reading of this Bill will be carried unanimously.

Mr. ALSTEAD: If I may claim the indulgence of the House I rise to support this Bill because I have for some time been privileged to act as the chairman of an advisory committee in the district in which I live in connection with this work, and I am sure that the House will do the right thing if it eliminates this gap period from the provisions of benefit to unemployed insured persons. I wonder if I understood the Minister of Labour aright when he said that the State had been rather evading its duties and its responsibilities in connection with this provision. I think that Parliament in the past was exceedingly wise when it made the provision which it did for the unemployed men and women of our country because, if I am any judge at all of the temper of the masses of industrial workers who were denied the right to work, I feel sure that this provision has saved the country from dangers which one does not like to contemplate, and insofar as the elimination of the gap period will make the lives of these unfortunate people more tolerable, I feel sure that the House is doing the right thing in passing this Bill.
I was interested to hear the Minister of Labour saying that the poverty of many of the people who receive unemployment benefit is so great that they cannot afford so much as a penny to purchase anything other than food. I wonder if right hon. Gentlemen quite realise that the lack of purchasing power in itself is one of the causes of unemployment in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come up here!"]I have the honour and privilege of belonging to a party which has always realised that it is the want of spending power on the part of the producing classes of this country that keeps our country in the state in which it is to-day. I belong to a class which feels sure that if you increase the purchasing power of the masses of the industrial workers of the country, much of the unemployment which now exists will pass away. If we had agreement on this point we should have, in the first place, as far as possible, an increase in the productivity of this country, and, in the second place, we should have a more equitable distribution of the wealth produced in the country, and, in doing so, we should run no risk whatever of any economic cataclysm and we should run no risks of interfering with our power
of competing with other nations in the markets of the world.
The necessity of abolishing the gap period only emphasises the low wages paid to and the low purchasing power at the disposal of so many of our industrial workers. We have our home market, but those who produce the wealth of our people have not sufficient w ages to enable them to buy the products of our own industry, and so far as we recognise the position and increase their purchasing power we shall stimulate the home market to such an extent as to reduce the unemployed class very considerately. I appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House to concentrate on this problem because if there is one thing that the people of this country expect this Parliament to do it is that it should solve the problem of equitable wealth production and wealth distribution and solve it in such a way—[HON. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members may laugh and may cheer, but I know that what I say is true, because without increased wealth productivity there can be no more generous distribution of what is produced. It is fundamental that the first thing which we must do is to ensure the employment of our people in such a way that they can produce abundant wealth, and having done that, we shall see to it that these people who produce it have a chance of enjoying the good things which they make, and in so far as these two things are possible I support this Bill because I know from personal experience what it will mean to those who now have to cover this gap period. Why should we drive these people to the guardians and increase the cost to the guardians, which in turn has to be raised from the overburdened ratepayers in industrial areas? These are things which are mutually destructive and do not tend to the wellbeing of the State.

6.0. P.M.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: I have had great pleasure in listening to the remarks which have just been made. I understand that it is the hon. Member's maiden speech, and even though we may not agree with every word that he said, yet I am certain that the great bulk of us are entirely in sympathy with the measures proposed in this Bill. It is quite true that the Bill covers only a small section of the ground. We have a great
mass of legislation on this subject, and we are adding to it on the one hand and subtracting from it on the other hand, until it becomes so incoherent that many of us have great difficulty in appreciating where a Bill begins or ends. No doubt from the point of view of ideal legislation it would be far preferable to recast entirely the Unemployment Insurance Bill. I believe that the present Measure will do much towards alleviating a good deal of the misery and distress which hitherto have stalked abroad in the country. This is only a small Measure, and I trust that every Member will support it and try to make it an active instrument for the good of the working classes. I notice that an hon. Member alluded to the fact that many people
previously had to seek relief from the guardians, and thereby added considerably to the expenses of the ratepayers; but whether the money comes from the ratepayers or from the taxpayers, as a rule the two classes are more or less identical, and you cannot differentiate between local taxation and imperial taxation in the ultimate effect. I am certain that this distribution and delegation of authority hampers not only the Government but also the local authorities. For that reason I welcome this Bill.

Mr. HANNON: It would be a pity if this Bill, which will undoubtedly receive the support of the whole House, should pass its Second Reading without someone on this side adding a word of support to the statement of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour). It is exceedingly easy for the Minister to point out the great amount of misery and destitution that may be relieved by bridging this gap, but I hope that the House will bear in mind that there is a distinct danger in offering further and further opportunity, which may prevent men going back to their legitimate employment so long as they are provided with some sort of assistance either from the ratepayers or the taxpayers. I suggest that although Members of this House are receiving numbers of letters from boards of guardians throughout the country, which, of course, feel deeply the amount which they have to pay in bridging this three weeks' period, yet there is great danger that with the removal of this period many men will be satisfied with the amount of the unem-
ployment insurance benefit and will not put forth sufficient effort to find work for themselves.
I agree with the Minister and with hon. Members opposite that there are great masses of workmen who would never dream of turning to boards of guardians, or to parish councils in Scotland, for relief; but there arc also very large numbers of men who do. The original basis of this unemployment insurance contemplated some intervening fact which would oblige a man to seek legitimate work. It would be a great misfortune if, by continuously amending the Acts, we were to make facilities, more and more from day to day, for people to avoid honest endeavour to secure employment for the maintenance of themselves and their families. The Minister was careful to indicate vaguely some further developments of unemployment insurance in the present Session. We ought to know what he contemplates. Is he going to remove any of the other safeguards which keep unemployment insurance within legitimate bounds? The industries of this country are bearing the cost of unemployment insurance to the cost of £19,000,000 a year. It is true that the people who are engaged in the work are also paying the very considerable share of £16,000,000 a year, and that the State is contributing £213,000,000.
The original principle was that there should be means whereby, after intervals of time, a test should be applied as to whether a man honestly sought work or not. In this legislation you are departing from that principle. [HON. MEMBERS:"No! "] You are. The only argument I have heard has been that there was a different set of circumstances now from those which prevailed in 1911. That is true. But you have not entirely eliminated the shirker. There must he some means whereby men of that class, who are unworthy to be side by side with honest working men, shall be forced to seek employment. No one objects to the Bill as it stands, but on this side of the House we will certainly watch with great care further proposals for the enlargement of unemployment insurance, in order to safeguard as far as we can, in the first place, industry as a whole and, secondly, the rights of the honest workmen whose contributions in large measure will be employed to pay those who do not seek
work in a legitimate way. I hope that the Bill will have unanimous assent, but that the Ministry will take care in any further proposals to safeguard both those interests.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Miss Bondfield.]

Orders of the Day — DISEASES OF ANIMALS [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[MR. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient that the limitation of one hundred and forty thousand pounds imposed by section eighteen of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, on the moneys which may be provided by Parliament towards defraying the costs in such section mentioned and be paid to the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account for Great Britain shall not apply to moneys so provided in either of the financial years ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-five."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): The Resolution deals with a clear necessity arising from melancholy circumstances which have aroused great interest in the country. Not only have numberless farmers been brought into dire trouble, but several hon. Members of this House have also suffered from the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease in such a way as to call for our deepest sympathy. The Resolution paves the way for a Bill which will enable the Ministry to meet the cost of the present visitation, which has proved very much in excess of the statutory limitation imposed by Act of Parliament. Section 18 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, provides that any expenditure under the Act in excess of an annual sum of £140,000 shall be charged upon the local taxation accounts, but there has been a practice for at least 25 years to regard expenditure on foot-and-mouth disease as a charge borne by Imperial rather than local funds. Consequently, although for convenience funds to defray the expenses by way of compensation and so on have been obtained in the first instance by drafts on the local
taxation accounts, it has been the practice to recoup the accounts by votes of Parliament. That was the procedure up to 1922. In that year there was an outbreak very much greater than any that had occurred for a very long time, and it cost £751,090. The then Government decided to depart from the usual practice, and that only one-half of the cost should be defrayed from Imperial funds, leaving the remaining half to be borne on local funds. A Bill was passed to give effect to that decision.
In regard to the present epidemic the late Government had to decide what should be done to pay for it, and not long before they left office it was agreed that the greater part of the expense should be borne by the Exchequer. The present Government have decided to follow that procedure. Of the maximum sum of £140,000, which, by the Act of 1894, may be voted annually to defray the cost of dealing with diseases of animals, £40,000 has always been kept back for swine fever, so that only £100,000 is left for dealing with other diseases. This outbreak is estimated to cost the enormous sum—comparatively speaking—of £3,250,000. It is proposed that the share of the expenditure chargeable to the Local Taxation Account, in the case of England, shall be limited to a sum estimated at £250,000. The amount chargeable to the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account will be 12/88ths of the share borne by the English account. In view of the possible contingency that it may be necessary to exceed next year the amount allowed by Statute, it is proposed to remove the limitation for two years.
As the matter has attracted very wide interest, I should like to review the history of the series of outbreaks which occurred in the last eight. mouths. A very abnormal outbreak it has been—unlike anything which has occurred for 40 years past. The first case occurred in August at Rotherham. Since that date 2,600 outbreaks have occurred in 37 different counties in England and Wales and 11 counties in Scotland, and these have involved the slaughter of 89,000 cattle, 30,000 sheep, 42,000 pigs and 111 goats. The estimated expenditure on compensation alone—I have had the latest figure just given me—is £2,851,000. A new feature, and a very disturbing feature, in this recent outbreak is represented by the number of apparently unconnected centres of the disease estab-
lished in widely spread localities. Another is the extreme rapidity with which infection has spread from farm to farm. Several hon. Members know how rapidly it spread in Cheshire and Shropshire. Until the third week of November the new centres, excepting in the Cheshire area, were stamped out. On the 18th of November some pigs which arrived at Newcastle from Scotland contaminated the railway sidings, and no less than 160 further outbreaks in the Midlands resulted from that contamination. That was a most serious state of things, and it caused a sudden rush of work on the part of the Ministry's Veterinary Department. Since December the situation has rapidly improved, and whereas in the last week of that month there were 319 outbreaks on separate farms, in the past week there were only 55. There has been a very rapid and a great improvement, and it encourages the hope that the disease is now well under control and the hope that the restrictions which are still in force over a very wide area may soon be removed. But it has been found necessary, as I have said, to provide for the removal of the limitation on public expenditure for another year in order to be on the safe side.
The figures are grave enough, but when we consider the total number of cattle in the country, the matter takes on a form which is a little more reasonable. The mortality amounts to 1…3 per cent. cattle, 0…15 per cent. sheep, and about 1…5 per cent. pigs, but in Cheshire the losses have been extraordinary. There, about 50,000 cattle, including 42,000 cows, or 34 per cent. of the cow population of the county, have been slaughtered. The Ministry decided early in January that the isolation policy instead of the slaughter policy could be safely adopted in certain circumstances and it was adopted especially in connection with very valuable herds, and 26 premises in the Cheshire area have been isolated in accordance with this decision. Before saying a word about the slaughter policy, which naturally has given rise to a good deal of discussion, I would to get the House to realise the extraordinary difficulty of the situation. I asked that I myself should be taken to see the procedure which is followed when an outbreak occurs. I visited a farm in Middlesex and saw what takes place on farms quite near to large centres of
population, where you are attempting to establish isolation. You have policemen at the gate. Everybody going in and out has to be disinfected. The footpaths are disinfected. The officials of the Ministry are there and at great expense an attempt is made to establish complete isolation but the boundaries of a farm could not be certainly isolated without barbed wire entanglements which would run to many hundred of miles if that policy were to be attempted all over the country. The particular farm which I visited illustrated the extraordinary difficulties under which we are working. On this day week a cow developed the symptons. Notification was sent out and the following morning six more cows had become infected and before a party of slaughterers could be brought on the scene, pigs had been infected and, in one case, calves were at the point of death already from the disease alone, before they were slaughtered. There were only six cows actually affected but 80 cows had to be slaughtered and 60 pigs. The features which struck me were the extraordinary rapidity with which the disease worked—the rapid deterioration which occurred in the affected cattle in almost a moment of time—and the impossibility of isolating a farm, especially in a rather thickly populated part, where there is nothing on earth to prevent, for example, poachers in the neighbourhood from rabbiting in any part of the farm at any time they think fit.
The slaughter policy has been called into question and very naturally is a subject of great public interest. Apart from the isolation just mentioned, the Ministry has maintained the policy of eradication by the immediate slaughter of all infected animals. That policy was subjected to an exhaustive review two years ago by a Committee of which Mr. Pretyman, formerly Member for Chelmsford, was Chairman, and that Committee reported on the whole strongly in favour of the policy. Owing to the highly infective nature of the disease, isolation has, as a rule, been adopted only in a few eases of pedigree stock of very high value. Prior to 1922 the slaughter policy was very successful, and the average annual cost to the Exchequer for 30 years before 1922 was £9,000 a year On the Continent, where the disease is endemic, isolation has been adopted of necessity—it would be impossible to
stamp out foot-and-mouth disease in most Continental countries—and the annual loss, for instance, in France, is said to be about £5,000,000, and in Holland the amount lost is estimated at £2,500,000. Despite the heavy cost which the slaughter policy involved two years ago and the still greater cost now, it has never been in question whether the policy of mere isolation is not a failure compared with our policy. I have thought it over carefully, and in order to get a complete review of the situation I have asked Mr. Pretyman to preside over a Committee which will consist of some other gentlemen, as well as himself, who were members of the former Committee—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, Mr. H. German and Mr. Alexander Batchelor. I have asked them not merely to review the whole situation and the procedure adopted, but to go again into the comparative results and to state their opinion between one policy and the other.
This country has an unusual chance. I think I may make some remarks upon the subject as it is attracting so much interest, although the central question is sub judice. I feel it is very important to know that this country, being an island, is capable of getting clear much more easily than other countries. Experience also shows that the results of slaughter have given satisfaction in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. The United States had the disease in 1914–16 and they eradicated it by slaughter at an expense of £1,500,000, since when they have been entirely free. In the same way, [...]rinderpe.st has been completely stamped out in this country, as well as other diseases which we hardly hear spoken of now, but which sonic of us remember to have been very common in this country. If the disease were to become established and endemic here, as it almost certainly would become if isolation were adopted, among the subsidiary results would be the serious effect upon our export trade which we all know is a highly valuable item. Isolation not only requires too elaborate an organisation to be effective, but even in the few cases in which it has been adopted recently it has been very difficult to control the spread of the disease, and a. few cases have usually been traced to infection from premises on which isolation had taken
place. The buildings an most farms are quite unsuitable for isolation, and you would require something much more elaborate to snake the system a real success. Up to now we have the opinion of the majority of British agriculturists in favour of the slaughter policy, and during the present attack both the Councils of Agriculture for England and Wales and the Statutory Agricultural Advisory Committee have approved of the policy of the Ministry. Another important consideration is that Great Britain has had extraordinary success with the policy in the past, and that the difficulty of isolation would be greater here than elsewhere because of the much greater stock of sheep in this country. Other countries have a much lower stock of sheep, and we have an unusual area of pastures on which sheep run together and on which it would be impossible to carry out any effective isolation.
There was, unfortunately, delay at the height of the epidemic in Cheshire which led to very distressing results. It may be asked why the disease took such a special hold upon Cheshire. One reason was that infection was carried to the railway sidings at Crewe, and there a large number of animals were infected, which spread over a very considerable area within reach of Crewe, and the Ministry, which, with proper economy, normally maintains only a nucleus staff, was suddenly called upon to get together a perfect army of men to deal with the outbreaks. Fences are not good enough to snake isolation easy, and difficulty was experienced in obtaining the necessary butchers in the short time. Therefore, when 6O to 80 outbreaks a day were occurring, to my mind it is marvellous that the outbreaks were dealt with as rapidly and as efficiently as they were. Restrictions are still being maintained over all infected areas within a radius of 15 miles. No movement of animals is allowed out of these areas, but movement of fat stock is permitted from one area to a slaughter house in another, and there are some other exceptions, details of which I shall be glad to give if any hon. Member wishes to have them. Hunting is prohibited, of course, in all these infected areas, and I hope the House will approve of my action in presenting an obdurate front to the demand for relaxa-
tion of the hunting restrictions. The matter is far too serious to play with on account of any interest. All the areas are kept watched continually, and expenditure, of course, on such a large staff is very great indeed.
The reference to the Committee which I have appointed will, I hope, meet with the approval of the House. It is:—
To examine into the circumstances of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, to review and report upon the slaughter policy and the procedure adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture, to advise whether any further precautions should be taken to guard against the introduction and spread of the disease, and to consider whether a scheme of insurance can he devised as an alternative to the existing system of compensation for slaughtered animals.
One other subject remains on which I would like to say a few words, and that is the question of research. Research, to my mind, presents the only aspect of interest and satisfactory work on which we can dwell with pleasure in connection with animal disease. There is very magnificent work done at the laboratories of the Ministry, and at other laboratories, some of which the Ministry assists with money, up and down the country. The possibility of such a visitation recurring, to my mind, necessitates much greater attention being paid to research, both into the causes of the epidemic and also into the possible means of immunising stock against infection. The idea has prevailed hitherto that we were putting our foot upon the disease, and, therefore, research did not get very serious attention in this country till a few years ago. Prior to 1920, I find, there was no particular investigation, and, indeed, it was because of the extreme danger of spreading the disease. In 1912, a Commission was sent to India, with instructions to begin the investigation of the origin and means of transmission of the disease, but they found it was impossible to make any satisfactory progress with their studies because of the universal prevalence of the disease in a mild form, so that animals for experiment could not be found that were either free from the disease or not to some extent immune from it.
Following that, in 1920, a Committee was appointed, under the Chairmanship of Professor Muir, of Glasgow, which made investigations into the artificial cultivation of the virus and into the
visibility of the microbe, the bacillus, but no success has as yet been met with in that respect. The Committee established a laboratory at Harwich, they asked the Admiralty for a disused warship, they anchored two lighters, on which the animals lived, alongside this ship, and for seven months they carried on research, but at the end of that time they came to the conclusion that it could not be profitably carried any further. The number of animals was too limited, there was great difficulty in maintaining a supply of virus, and another trouble has been that the virus, when brought from a distance, loses its virulence with great rapidity, and most variably and unexpectedly. The pathologists in charge failed to discover within the period any method of cultivating the virus, and the Committee concluded that they had better stop, unless it could be continued on a much larger scale, preferably on an island. They spent £13,000 on that piece of work.
For many years there has been continuous and organised investigation by the efficient veterinary staffs of countries where the disease prevails widely, such as France, Germany, Switzerland, and Holland, and in spite of all that, the greatest difficulties have been met, owing t to the fact that the virus is ultramicroscopic. This is a general question of interest, not only in connection with foot-and-mouth disease, but scientists all over the civilised world are working at this matter of visibility or ultra-invisibility, and when that has been advanced, foot-and-mouth disease, with other diseases, will be dealt with with far greater ease. There is work being done all over the world on what is really the basis of research, but so far these investigations have not succeeded. They have not cultivated the organism, and they have not found a vaccine. Quite lately, a German investigator was said to have made a very great advance, and the German Government gave permission for him to discuss the matter with one of our representatives. One of our officials has been sent, and we are awaiting his report.
There are experiments being carried out under the Ministry's chief veterinary officer, and we are examining the possibility of further investigations. Sir Robert Sanders referred the question to the well-known scientist, Sir William
Leishman, as to the proper sphere of inquiry, and I propose to appoint a Committee, consisting of both veterinarians and human pathologists, with instructions to frame a scheme of investigation, and then to allocate to each branch of [...]16 the particular individuals who are most suitable, the Committee to supervise and to co-ordinate the results. That will cost money, and we have obtained the consent of the Treasury for a sum sufficient to carry on that work for some years. We cannot anticipate that this very difficult inquiry will come to an end for a very long period. It might be several years before any adequate results were obtained. I think we may hope that such an exhaustive inquiry, which has not been necessary before in this country, may lead to very valuable results, which have never been gained in this country up till now. I think that is all I had better say now. It seems to me that from this very sombre subject one very fine thing emerges, and that is the unremitting work done by those concerned with the outbreak, and the untiring labours connected with the research which has already been carried out.

Mr. EDWARD WOOD: I wish to associate myself at once, most wholeheartedly, with the right hon. Gentleman's concluding observation as to the acknowledgment that all parties, I am sure, would wish to pay to those public officials and other scientific individuals and organisations who have been doing their best to com[...] but the plague with which this Money Resolution is concerned. I think the Committee will not be other than grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that he has taken advantage of the occasion of the introduction of this Money Resolution, on which he proposes to found his Bill, to give the Committee a general review of the position as he sees it to-day, and to give some extremely valuable information as to the Departmental action that has been and is being taken, and that he has also in more immediate contemplation. Everybody who has had any experience at all of what this outbreak has meant to the agricultural community—to farmers who have watched and waited day by day, week by week, with anxiety as to when their turn might come, and who, if their turn has not come, have borne patiently and without com-
plaint, in a vast number of cases, the extremely onerous restrictions that it has been necessary, in their own interests and in the interests of their neighbours, to place upon them—will appreciate how much this subject has loomed in the atmosphere of the whole agricultural community.
On one point of comparatively minor importance I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he has, as indeed he has on the large issue, the full sympathy of all those who are concerned. He expressed the hope that he would have general support in maintaining what I think he described as an obdurate front to the question of the retaining of restrictions upon hunting. As one who
occasionally allows himself to indulge in some small degree in that often misunderstood sport, I can assure him that he has the good will of the whole hunting community in that attitude. I think I am also right in saying that in those cases where restrictions on hunting have been relaxed, in nine cases out of ten they have been relaxed at the express wish and suggestion of the farming community in the neighbourhood. The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, entirely correct in saying that this Financial Resolution follows up the policy of the late Government, and, in the course of his review, he quoted enough figures to show how serious and how overwhelming are the difficulties with which those who have had to fight the disease have been confronted. He especially dwelt upon—this, I fancy, is not a new feature, but it is, at all times, a baffling one—the rapidity of the disease, and the I unconnected character of the outbreaks, and 1 believe that it is scientifically true that the microbe that is supposed to be responsible for the causation of this disease is one that defies the microscope, and evades the filter, and is obviously, therefore, extremely difficult to pursue. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that there had been—and we all welcome it—a considerable reduction in the number of outbreaks. I do not actually recall his figures, but I think he said that in one recent week there had been outbreaks to the number of 63. That, of course, is still very serious, and I would have thought it was almost too serious for the right hon. Gentleman to be able to claim with confidence that the outbreak was well under control. I hope, with all my heart, that
in so claiming he is right, but it would seem that there is a long way still to go.
1 do not propose to trouble the Committee with any observations in general upon the policy of slaughter. As the Committee know, and as the right hon. Gentleman reminded them, it has more than once formed the subject of careful expert inquiry, and has been canvassed with extreme vigour on both sides in either direction by the whole farming community. I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to say, as far as I have been able to form a judgment, that among experts, and also, I think, the general farming community, the balance of opinion has emerged in favour of the slaughter policy; but in considering a slaughter policy, it is, of course, quite right, and it is necessary to bear in mind, that our experience of the slaughter policy, up to now, has been on a scale totally different from that with which we have lately been confronted, and up to now, as he reminded us, we have been able to get through at a comparatively small cost. It is at that point, I think, that we appreciate the extreme importance of what the right hon. Gentleman said upon the subject of investigation and research. It is quite evident that if this country were to be faced with the danger of a constant recurrence of the sort of expenditure on slaughter we have had to face in the last few months, there would be an almost overwhelming demand for a reconsideration of that policy, and I doubt very much whether you could stave if off by pointing to the undoubted difficulties and disadvantages of isolation. People would say, we are paying these large sums of money for, apparently, no result. Therefore, I, personally, attach the utmost importance to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about investigation and research. When I heard him read the terms of reference to the Pretyman Committee, I was not very sure that they covered the whole field I could wish to see Covered, and it is rather difficult to judge—

Mr. BUXTON: May I make it quite clear that another Committee, consisting of scientists, will deal with research?

Mr. WOOD: What I was going to say, when I heard the terms of reference read, was, not that they were unsatisfactory but my dissatisfaction was almost, if not, I think I might say, entirely removed
when the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to announce he was going to appoint a separate Committee to deal with scientific research. I doubt whether in this, or, indeed, in any other field of scientific research, we have done nearly enough up to now in this country. The fact of being an island, and of having been fairly immune, has all tended to dull our sense of the necessity of acquiring, improving and developing our scientific knowledge, and no part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech will have been more welcomed than that in which he said he proposed to establish a really comprehensive inquiry. I am quite sure on this side of the House there will be no tendency to grudge the right hon. Gentleman any money he needs for the prosecution of such an inquiry.
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if I may, one or two questions. It is rather difficult, I think, to follow this Financial Resolution. It is not the fault of the Financial Memorandum; it is the fault of the intricacy of the way in which the nation keeps its accounts, and I think it is rather difficult for a layman to follow exactly what is proposed. I think, however, I am right in saying that the custom of ear-marking £40,000 for swine fever does not rest on a statutory obligation. As I read it, the only limitation in Section 18 is what I may call an upward limitation, which debars the Minister, or responsible authority, from spending more than £40,000 on swine fever. And, therefore, I take it that the statement in the Memorandum that £40,000 is earmarked for swine fever must be the result of administrative practice rather than of a statutory obligation. But what I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this. In the last paragraph but one of the Financial Memorandum, it is stated that the expenditure chargeable to the Local Taxation Account shall be limited to a sum at present estimated at £250,000, representing the amount by which that part of the Estate Duty Grant payable into the Local Taxation Account exceeds the average of the corresponding receipts for the preceding five years. If that figure of the Estate Duty Grant varies in the forthcoming year, will the £250,000 limit of grant on the Local Taxation Account also vary? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman, if he replies in the course of the discussion, will be able
to tell us whether the £250,000 is a fixed figure for the forthcoming year, or whether it will itself vary if the Estate Duty Grants, on which the original figure is based, have themselves varied.
A rather more serious question I should like to put is this. I do not quite follow the necessity for the last paragraph of the Financial Resolution suspending the limit for two years instead of one. Here we are, in February 1924, suspending the limit for the year 1923–24. The right hon. Gentleman is also asking us to suspend the limit for the year 1924–25. 1 should be inclined to suggest that if retrospective legislation is bad, prospective legislation is also open to objection, because neither the right hon. Gentleman nor anybody else can in the least tell what will be the position this time next year, or whether, indeed, it will be necessary to remove the limit under which Parliament, in its wisdom, has, up to now, regulated this expenditure. If it is so necessary to remove it, I would suggest. it would not be a very serious thing for the right hon. Gentleman to come down to this House, and ask it again to do what, he is asking it to do for 1923–24, and in doing so, give the House an opportunity of subjecting the whole matter to a careful review. What he is really asking us to do—I do not complain of it in the least with regard to this year—is to give him a comparatively blank cheque for whatever expenditure he may find it necessary to incur. I do not complain of that in the least, but I do say when the House of Commons is asked to do that, it ought also to have the opportunity of informing itself what has been the line of administration that has made such a suspension necessary, and give the Minister an opportunity of making a statement of such extreme value as we have had the opportunity of hearing this afternoon. Therefore, I would ask my right hon. Friend to take that consideration into account, and see if he could not meet the feeling of a good many of my friends, and, I feel bound to add, the general constitutional position of the House of Commons, by not asking at this stage for more than he really wants.
7.0 P.M.
I have only one other word to add that arises directly out of this Financial Resolution. There is, as I think the right hon. Gentleman knows probably much better than I do, a considerable feeling among
farmers that there have been cases in which infection has been carried through
a certain failure to take proper precautions. I do not mean by the officers of the Ministry or by the persons responsible. The kind of person whom I think I have heard blamed rather freely has been the casual slaughterer who has been brought in in order to speed up slaughter, and who, after doing his job on the farm, has gone away before he has been satisfactorily disinfected. I do not know whether there is any foundation for that charge or not. It may be that it is baseless, but I think it would reassure the farming community if the right hon. Gentleman, or the hon. Gentleman who will perhaps reply, was able to state definitely that the fullest precautions were taken in all respects that ingenuity could suggest. One other observation I would make. I do not think—I may be wrong, and I have had no opportunity of actually refreshing my mind—I do not think any compensation is payable to farmers for anything but stock that is slaughtered. It is quite evident that when you have an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on the farm, a great many other things ought to be, and in well-regulated cases have been, burned. For example, you have an outbreak among sheep in a field. You ought at once to burn the sheep nets. In farm buildings you should burn the farm utensils. I know a great many farmers burn the men's clothes and give them new sets. That kind of precaution is being taken by the most progressive farmers. You will not get the less progressive farmers to do it unless under compensation. You may condemn them. In part they do not realise the necessity for it, and in part they would have been disposed to think they have been badly off and they do not think they should be at any further financial loss for which no cover is available. I suggest that it would be worth while considering whether, if we have to pay this vast sum of £3,000,000 for compensation, it would not be worth while as well to go a further step and hold out that inducement to farmers to thoroughly disinfect their premises by burning everything that has been in contact. That has not been suggested to me by farmers, but it has been my observation of what has been done by the most up-to-date farmers and not by
the less up-tot-date farmers. On the whole, we, as indeed we are bound to be, are at one in sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Committee to do, and I can assure him that they have heard with great sympathy and pleasure, as far as he was able to make it satisfactory, with regard to administration and his policy of investigation, and that every help we on this side can give him in pursuit of those ends we shall be happy to give.

Mr. ACLAND: I need make no more excuse for intervening in this Debate than the fact that I also, during the time I was officially connected with the Ministry of Agriculture, had an opportunity, as part of my duties, actually to see one of those outbreaks. Fortunately, it was a short one, which was quickly suppressed. No one could have seen the disease actually in progress on the farm from day to day without being impressed, first, with the terrible pace at which it spreads; second, with its virulence; thirdly, with its appalling infectivity—no animal within reach of the infection has a chance of escape; and, fourthly, with the extraordinary mystery of its causation. It is a most terrible thing to see the sufferings of the animals alone, without taking into account the loss which falls on their owners. Also we all realise that the loss that we in this country sustain by these outbreaks is not measured in any way by the amount of compensation which falls on the national funds. The loss—quite irrecoverable by any scheme of compensation—which must have fallen on some of those who have kept those dairy herds in Cheshire, herds which they had probably built up through many years' herds of milk-recorded stock, with well-known pedigrees and connections for which they have built up a connection among their friends in that and other countries—it is almost like losing your wife and children to lose your stock which you have built up in that way, sometimes from generation to generation on a particular farm. There is this further loss to us, quite apart to the loss from the man whose herds have to be destroyed, that is the loss, continued over months, of the export value of our pedigree stock on which we largely depend in this country and upon which, other countries depend for introducing new blood into their herds. Export is stopped immediately an out-
break comes. Herds go down in value by enormous sums Os soon as they lose their market. I should like to make one point with regard to the financial matter about which my right hon. Friend opposite spoke. 1 want to give the Minister of Agriculture fair warning that when we get to a later stage and have to consider on Thursday a Supplementary Estimate, he will be called upon to explain the most difficult sentence I have ever seen written in any Government document which has ever been issued. I thought I was accustomed to the phraseology of these things. I must not quote the sentence now. I read it three times the right way round, and I read it twice the wrong way round, and T believe 1 understood it more readily reading it backwards than forwards. [An HON. MEMBER: "You would! "] I am quite certain nobody will understand it, and the right hon. Gentleman will have to explain it when the time comes. I imagine that he or the Parliamentary Secretary will he able to show good reason why we have now to be asked to act for two years. It must already be evident that a very considerable sum will fall to be paid in connection with this outbreak in the next financial year, and it seems to me that, in itself, may he considered some justification for what my right hon. Friend proposes to do.
With regard to the question of slaughter, I am glad the Minister of Agriculture made this point: that we ought to take rather a long view and consider, not merely the cost direct and indirect that is falling upon us this year and in recent rather heavy and expensive outbreaks, but to look at it as spread over a period of years and more or less average it up. It would not he right to consider it apart from the average loss falling on the country over a series of years, unless it could be shown either that the disease is becoming more virulent or rapid in its action or more prevalent on the Continent, from which, no doubt, the infection come, than it was five, 10 or 15 years ago. There is little indication of that. Although outbreaks of recent years have tended to be very severe, one has to look at it over an average of a considerable period, and I think there is no doubt that, taken in that way over a series of years, the policy of slaughter puts a less burden on the country than the policy of
isolation, which practically means that we should have to regard the disease as endemic, as it has unfortunately to be regarded on the Continent. He has stated that at a certain period of the outbreak in Cheshire the policy of isolation was allowed. I would like to ask him or the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us more clearly at what stage in an outbreak, at what size of the outbreak, that change from the policy of slaughter to the policy of allowing isolation was made. I know it is difficult to define, hut it is an extraordinarily important matter on which we should like to have more information. I think the House would like to be reassured as to the conditions under which isolation is allowed.
We are approaching, within the next four weeks, the period on which migration of little birds begins. Coming in from the Continent and passing up through the country, creeping along from field to field, and passing along a good long way from the time they first settle in the country until the place where they finally settle and nest is reached, I have a feeling that in the time of bird migration the infection of this disease is more likely to be carried from farm to farm than at other times. We should like to know that isolation, which no doubt in some cases will be going on when bird migration begins, will at any rate be isolation under cover and not isolation in fields open for the passage of birds, dogs, foxes, and so on. The main point I want to make is in regard to what I think is the only thing we can work at with some chance of getting to the bottom, namely, further schemes of research into the causes of the possible cure or immunisation against this terrible plague. We have been told the difficulty. The bacteria, like that of some human diseases, are ultra-microscopic and ultra-filtrable, and the matter therefore becomes, as in these human diseases, extraordinarily difficult. I do feel—and I am glad steps are being taken which may bring that about—that this is to be tackled on a perfectly different scale from that on which it has been hitherto tackled.
Looked at properly, this is an enormous international problem. Here are half the countries of Europe losing millions of pounds a year. It would be well worth their while, before really deciding on
what scheme of research and experiment could be made, calling together an international conference of the scientific authorities in the different countries to work out a joint programme. If necessary, you might take a small country—there are plenty of small countries knocking about Europe now—for carrying on over a series of years, as no doubt will be necessary, researches into this disease. It would be well worth while for the countries of Europe to earmark £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 to work out over a series of years, by a great measure of team-work, researches which might possibly shed light on this matter. It is not a question simply for the veterinary surgeon. In fact, as happens so often in research in other matters than this, from the most unexpected sources a ray of light comes which really gives you the key. It does seem to me to be a matter—not only in this case but in others—in which you might get a real team to work together, not only of veterinary officers, but of chemists, physicists, pharmacists, pharmacologists, and so on. No scheme, provided it was really based on scientific advice, should be too great or too expensive, if really necessary and set on foot in co-operation with other countries in respect to this matter, and I think it must be done mainly abroad.
We cannot, of course, afford to have on our ships nor on our coasts the disease continuing in our country when it can he stamped out. That goes without saying. The difficulty in India has been referred to. At some great stations abroad where the disease is practically endemic and where any scheme in concert with other countries can be arranged, our investigators must be required to leave their country for their country's good, so as to work these things out with the people of these other countries. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture requires no urging in this matter. I do hope that this Committee will be hacked up by the Treasury in the work they have to do. Perhaps the suggestion that I am now about to make may seem somewhat stupid, but what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture brought this little suggestion to my mind. The House will remember that he said that investigation was difficult in India because they found there the disease in a very mild form. Surely, however, that would suggest to this Committee that, by having put the disease
through many generations of stock, it may be possible to get a form mild in this country. That line of consideration and that point of view might be considered, and we might arrive at a method of immunising which would not be the immunising of infection in the ordinary way. We have not tried anything of that kind here. I know that over a certain period experiments tried on sheep had to be abandoned for the lack of material, but as we all know the disease is more virulent in pigs, less virulent in cattle, and, again, less virulent in sheep. It seems to me that the possibility of infecting sheep from one to the other in the long series, dozens or scores, might lead to obtaining a mild form of disease, and that further experiments with infection and that the mild form might possibly be tried and might conceivably have effect. That is such an amateur suggestion that I almost hesitate to make it, and would hardly have done so had it not been for the suggestion of my right hon. Friend on the subject. Work of that description requires to be long continued and thoroughly carried out, by way of r search, in the districts where it may be possible to have access to the infection and plenty of animals on which to experiment. Do not let us be afraid really of a big scheme of national research; and by scientific research deal with the original problems which may surround these subjects. Whatever the expense, if the work was crowned with success, it would be well worth the money as an insurance of our flocks and herds in this and other countries in the future.

Captain FITZROY: The importance of foot-and-mouth disease fully justifies the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture in speaking at some length and some detail, not only as to the origin, but the course that the disease has taken. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that anything I have to say, so far as I can speak for hon. Members on this side of the House, will be in order to assist him in overcoming this disease rather than in putting any obstacles in the way. There are one or two things on which I should like some information. First, as regards the compensation that has been paid. This Money Resolution before us is to obtain funds to pay the compensation. The right hon. Gentleman has given us
some figures of the amount and cost of the expenses incurred by other countries, who do not pursue the same policy that we do in their endeavours to stamp out this disease. I think he referred to France. Upon what basis are these figures compiled in relation to the losses and payments in France? The figures that he gave were entirely based on the compensation, cost of administration, and so on. If we were to add to the cost of compensation and the cost of administration the cost of slaughter and the losses incurred in this country by the farmers who have been infected by this disease, it would add an enormous sum to the estimate, because in very many cases the farmer who has not had this disease amongst his flocks and herds has incurred much heavier loss than the farmer who has been compensated for the loss he has suffered. The farmer who has the disease is fully compensated for the slaughter of the cattle, whereas the other one who happens to be in the restricted area is hampered and hindered in the sale of his stock which is ready for the market, for the animals are kept from sale for a great deal longer than otherwise would be the case. The losses incurred by farmers in this respect it is almost impossible to state.
I am glad to hear that the Minister has appointed a small Committee further to investigate the origin of the different outbreaks, and the methods best to be employed to deal with them. My hon. Friend opposite was a member of a similar Committee some years ago. That Committee went very exhaustively into the origin and the history of the disease which was then very prevalant throughout the country. I think that the Committee came to the unanimous conclusion that the slaughtering which he had hitherto pursued was the best. I should not like to say overmuch in any discussion upon the merits of slaughter, isolation or other methods connected with stamping out the disease. We ought to remember that never before, or rather not for a long number of years, have we had to deal with an outbreak of such dimensions as that which has taken place in the last few months, and that while slaughter has undoubtedly been successful in the past, unless it is successful now the whole question must really be considered. I understood the Minister to say that they considered that they had now really got the matter under
control. I was exceedingly glad to hear it, though I must say that, to my view, he was more optimistic than the position justifies. The other day there were not only fresh cases in the immediate neighbourhood where they hitherto existed, but we had fresh cases in quite different areas far removed from where the disease has been hitherto. If that is the case, and it continues to go on, really it makes a very serious position of affairs, and I am only too glad if the whole question is to be considered by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not propose to discuss the merits of one method or another. I think we ought to get full information as to the policy of slaughter, and how it has been carried out, and whether or not to the full satisfaction of the Ministry in all cases. It is very difficult for those of us who are not able to get first-hand information to speak on the matter, and we have to rely more or less upon rumour. A rumour reaches me of cases where the slaughter has been ordered and for some reason or another—perhaps because so many men were employed—the slaughter has been delayed till—in one case—the animals were really getting better when they were slaughtered. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs. I cannot, of course, say that the present Ministry is to blame, because they have just assumed office, and they are not responsible, but these kind of stories are in circulation, and anything of the kind going about creates in the mind of the agriculturists a want of confidence in the administration of the Ministry and as regards the carrying out of proper instructions and methods.
There is one other thing, that is the granting of licences. If you want to be successful in stamping out an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease you must endeavour to gain the complete confidence of the farmers throughout the country. In your work there undoubtedly will be considerable inconvenience. Rut if the farmers believe, in doing the best they can, with you, to carry out instructions, that that inconvenience is justified they will work; but leniency must not be given in one direction and not in another. I must say that I think that points have been stretched in granting licences to dealers for the movement of their cattle from one district to another. Take, for example, the case of a farmer through whose farm
a public road runs, and he has land on each side. It may be a by-road. He will have great difficulty in moving his cattle from one side to the other in the operation of his farming, and he has to get a licence to do it, and sometimes that is very difficult. He may find a herd of 50 or 60 cattle being driven along the road after arrival from Ireland, and they may be driven through an infected area under a licence. There may be some justification for granting a licence under those conditions, but what I want to point out is that the dealer is able to move his cattle about the country with much greater facility. What I really want to know is whether my fears on this question are grounded on facts or on mere rumour?
With regard to the actual money Resolution I should like to support the appeal which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood), that it is not necessary for us to ask for sufficient money for two years instead of one year. That proposal does not appear to me to be financially sound, and I cannot think that the Ministry will press that point, because it is obvious it would be financially sound not to ask for more money than is wanted this year. That course would give a favourable opportunity, if we have a continuance of the epidemic, to review the situation again. I understand that the Ministry have come to the conclusion that the only thing they can do at the present moment is to proceed with a policy on exactly the same lines as that which has been adopted hitherto. This seems to be a primitive way of dealing with any disease of this kind.
In speaking on agricultural questions I have always supported money being spent on research in order to find out the best, methods of dealing with these diseases, and I believe more good can be done to the agricultural community by scientific research in really enabling us to grapple with these diseases on scientific lines, instead of being satisfied with this most primitive method of slaughtering the animals affected. If the Minister in the course of this Parliament makes proposals for a grant of money still further to carry on the research work, not only on this question but upon many others connected with agriculture, I can assure him that he will receive not only my support but also that of my fellow Members on this side of the House.

Mr. ROYCE: I wish, in the first instance, to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture not only on the very lucid statement which he has made but also on the manner in which it has been received by the House. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly disarmed anything in the nature of criticism by his action, and I think there is no one who would have the courage, were he entering upon the duties which have fallen to the lot of the Minister, to dare to adopt, under the circumstances, any other course. The policy pursued is certain to command the support of those who have worked on the same principle during the last Parliament. I want to know if the Ministry keep a record of the number of cases where isolation occurs, and what is the effect and the result of isolation, that is, the number of cattle infected, and the number that recover in consequence of isolation.
The suggestion has been made that an international arrangement might be made to study the disease, and that some country should be selected for an experiment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will confiue his investigations to this country. I have seen diseases of cattle in other countries, especially amongst oxen, and I know that the effect of various diseases is quite different in various countries. I have heard of foot-and-mouth disease in South Africa, and I have known cases of rinderpest and pleuro-pneumonia, and other diseases. These diseases are quite different in different areas and countries, and therefore I do not think experiments in other countries would necessarily have more than a comparative relation to what is suitable for this country. I hope the Minister will not make investigations beyond these shores. I congratulate the Minister on his statement, and I am sure the House will be well advised to proceed on the lines which he has proposed, especially in the matter of research. We are all agreed that research is necessary, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stiffen up the administration in order to prevent any maladministration.

Mr. FREDERICK MARTIN: In what I am going to say I wish it to be under-stood that I have no intention whatever of making any reflection upon the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, because nothing is further from my mind. All I wish to suggest is that there has been a
s'ight error of judgment in one case. I want to draw attention to the experience which Aberdeenshire has had with regard to foot-and-mouth disease This is interesting because it affords some evidence as to the comparative methods of slaughter and isolation I need not remind the House of the importance of the cattle industry. Aberdeenshire is the premier cattle breeding county of Scotland and probably of Great Britain. It contains a large number of herds of cattle and most unfortunately for Aberdeenshire this disease, when it broke out in November, did so amongst the pedigree shorthorn cattle. Therefore the disease came, like other questionable importations, from the South, and it did not originate in Aberdeenshire. It was imported arid unfortunately it occurred in a pedigree herd.
In my view, if there were any county in Scotland or in Great Britain where the policy of slaughter would be justified, I think it is Aberdeenshire, a centre where there are so many invaluable herds, the names of which are quite familiar to all agricultural Members. In this particular case the Ministry of Agriculture decided not to slaughter because the disease had occurred in a pedigree herd. Two official reasons are given for avoiding slaughter in this case. The first is that the compensation would cost a very great deal of money; and the second is that if a general policy of slaughter were pursued with regard to pedigree herds, you might at the end of the epidemic find yourselves with no pedigree stock to breed from and raise again the herds of the country. Nevertheless, I think it was a mistake and a great hardship on Aberdeenshire that slaughter was not carried out, because within a very few days of the outbreak the disease broke out on two neighbouring farms where there were commercial cattle, and they were slaughtered.
A week elapsed and the disease broke out in another part of the county over the border in Banffshire. Immediately the 15-mile area of control was put into operation, and from that day up to the other day the principal industry of Aberdeenshire has been at a standstill. Within the area under control it so happens that there exists no adequate slaughtering facilities, and the Minister would not allow stock to be removed from the infected area to a free area for
slaughter. The result was that the farmers were unable to dispose of their stock at the Christmas market when the animals were in prime condition for the butcher. They did improvise certain slaughtering facilities, hut the returns obtained were very disappointing, and the result has been that all that trade has been held up. Farmers have been unable to get their spring stores, and they have had to spend a great deal of the keep in putting additional and superfluous fat on their already fattened stock. They had to take in store cattle, and they now have very small stores for them. That is a very serious position for a county like Aberdeen.
Repeatedly the local authority in one case implored the Ministry to slaughter these pedigree cattle and the Ministry, for the reasons I have stated, decline to do so. The disease continued to spread and further representations were made to the Ministry, and when I was asked to intervene and went to the Ministry I was told that these pedigree cattle were now recovering and the Minister could not authorise slaughter. I have been wondering whether that was the origin of the rumour which has been referred to in this Debate. There was another case where one of the herds developed symptoms of foot-and-mouth disease, and the local authority urged the Ministry to slaughter the cattle, but as a matter of fact in the end the local authority undertook slaughter on its own responsibility.
As to the question of compensation in this case the herd was not one of national importance although it was a good herd but not a first class one, and it was valued for Income Tax purposes as £6,013. An arrangement was come to by which the owner agreed to accept commercial prices for his cattle for slaughter, and ultimately the county council undertook to pay £4,000 in compensation, less salvage. That action was taken in order to get the disease stamped out of the county. What I am going to ask the Minister is this: I think it only fair, under all the circumstances, that the cost of slaughter should be charged to the State. The cost of the slaughter of that herd should be borne not by the county but by the State. If the money is to be raised by the local rate it will be a very serious matter for
the ratepayers. Take one small market town situated not far from the seat of the outbreak. It is a town which depends entirely upon its agricultural and cattle markets. It has not had a cattle market since November, and the result has been disastrous to the tradespeople. One is shortly to be held, I believe, but if the whole of the agricultural ratepayers in this small town are to be asked to pay their share of the estimated outlay of £4,000, it will be regarded as a very serious matter indeed.
I am making no complaint against officials. I think they are carrying out their duties under most trying and difficult circumstances in a very excellent manner.I hope, however, that the Minister will include in his Bill this small provision for Aberdeen, for, after all, the local authorities felt quite justified in carrying out the slaughter when they did. The resulting loss to the county through damage to business and the inability of the farmer to market his stock has been enormous, and I think it would be only fair that the country should bear this slight cost, for, of course, it will be very slight when it is spread over the entire country instead of being put on the shoulders of the county itself. There is only one other thing I desire to say, and it has to do with the matter of research. 1 hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep in view the claims of Scotland when he comes to deal more particularly with this matter. If there are investigations to be instituted in various centres, I hope he will pay some attention to Scotland where agricultural research has always been carried on in a very satisfactory manner. That is practically all I have to say.
I apologise to the Committee for having brought in local matter. I think it has some importance in view of the delay and the danger to the herds by the presence of disease in the county. The agricultural community is in favour of slaughter being carried out immediately the disease is discovered, because they hold that if that were done there would be an immediate end to the outbreak, and a good deal of money would be saved. The Minister has a right to expect and is justified in expecting the loyal co-operation of the agricultural community in his efforts to stamp out the disease. By making this small concession to the agricultural community the right hon. Gentleman will maintain the
goodwill of agriculturists, and I am sure that, if he will consult his technical advisers and the local authorities, and the farmers in Aberdeenshire, he will find they have been most public spirited in their action in this epidemic. I will give one instance showing how extremely careful local authorities have been. One of the leading councillors, who happened also to be chairman of the educational authority, discovered that children residing on the farm first affected were still going to school. I believe there is no law preventing children resident on infected farms attending school, but this member of a local authority took upon himself the responsibility of making a law excluding children from going to the school. This shows that they are doing their utmost in this circumscribed area to get rid of the disease, and I therefore make a very strong appeal to the Minister for consideration of the suggestion I have put before him.

Lord COLUM CRICHTON-STUART: As representing Cheshire, one of the counties which has suffered more than any other under the present outbreak, I agree with hon. Members who have congratulated the officials on the work they have done. They have strained every nerve to do the best they could to remedy the evil. But I do want to mention to ho Minister one criticism which I hear often in Cheshire. I hear it from experienced men who agree with the policy of slaughter. The suggestion is hat the administrative methods of the Ministry are not such as to secure the slaughter of the herds as quickly as it ought to be done in order to secure the most desirable economy. There arc too few officials employed. In the division I represent there are seven fully qualified veterinary surgeons, and there are at least three auctioneers capable of doing the work of valuators, yet I believe only one or two of the veterinary surgeons and only one valuator has been called in to deal with the outbreak. Although calling in extra staff might be more costly at the moment, in the long run the economy would be, greater, because you would get rid of the disease by destroying the herds at the earliest possible moment. A question has arisen with regard to getting qualified men to carry out the work of slaughter. In regard to that, it is probable the use of instruments, such as
pistols instead of the pole-axe, might lead to persons not usually engaged in slaughter doing the work, and this also might lead to the speeding up of the suppression of the outbreak. I have in mind a farm on which an outbreak occurred within one mile of the places of business of a veterinary surgeon and of a valuator, but neither of those gentlemen were employed by the Ministry, and delay was occasioned until officials could be brought from a distance, probably of 15 miles, to deal with the matter.
8.0 P.M.
We have heard a good deal of the losses caused by the destruction of the herds. I would like to mention the sad condition of large numbers of labourers. I believe there are 600 men out of work through the prevalence of this disease in one town in Cheshire alone. We have heard a good deal about the unemployed benefit and of the difficulties and hardships felt by industrial workers, but the lot of the agricultural worker is still more hard because they usually reside a long distance from where they can obtain relief. I would beg the Minister to consider this question, and to see if some special method could not be introduced to facilitate the means for bringing relief to these men on the spot. There is another point to which I should like to draw attention. A suggestion has been made of loans on easy terms to enable the farmers to restock their farms. There are large areas where the disease has been stamped out, and where the farmers are desirous of restocking, and I am sure any announcement by the Minister on that subject would be received with gratitude by large numbers of farmers in many different parts of the country—unfortunately not in Cheshire, because in that county such progress has not yet been made as to stamp out the disease in any single part' of it. I hope that any observations I have made will not be taken as strictures upon the work of the officials engaged n stamping out the disease. We realise fully that that part of their work which we criticise is clone with the object of securing economy, and the suggestion we make is that in the long run greater economy will be achieved by a heavier expenditure at the start of any outbreak.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: I very much regret that I cannot join in throwing
bouquets to the officials and experts of the Ministry of Agriculture. We have to look at the problem as it appears to us to-day. We have here a Government Department that has been in existence for many years, that has had the resources of the State behind it, that has had the power and the right to engage the most eminent scientists, not merely in this country, but in the world; and they have blundered from generation to generation and from year to year, and it is only when an outbreak such as we have at the present time, which has devastated our country during the last eight months, that we hear of the experts and officials of the Ministry of Agriculture at all. Let the House imagine, if it can, in the case of an outbreak of small-pox in a street, the scientists and officers of the Ministry of Health saying, "Yes, kill everyone in the street, and then you will stamp it out." Of course you will stamp anything out by a policy of extinction. You will cure a man's toothache if you cut off his head. But the penalty is too severe, and, in the opinion of a large number of practical farmers—I am not a practical farmer; I do not speak as one, but I speak as representing some of the farming element—there is a large and growing intelligent opinion among farmers that, if the Ministry of Agriculture had taken the proper steps at the proper time, it would have been possible to eliminate this disease, or, at any rate, if not to eliminate it entirely, to reduce it to such a minimum as to make it hardly worth counting.
I disagree with one observation of a right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench, that it was only the non-progressive farmers who did not supply their assistants with disinfectants and new clothes when an outbreak had subsided. The progress of a farmer is like the progress of any other man—it is limited by his banking account. There is a large number of farmers who cannot afford to do these things, and the fact still remains that the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country has brought ruination to scores of farmers—men who have spent the whole of their lives in bringing up a herd to their own satisfaction, and have developed a huge milk trade. That trade is gone, and there is not a penny of compensation for them. The manure that they had to put on their land in the spring has gone,
and there is not a penny of compensation. The hay that they had for feeding their cattle has gone. They could not sell it, and had to destroy it without a penny of compensation. The seed that they brought in for the coming spring has gone without a penny of compensation. We are told that this fell disease comes from a microbe which cannot be perceived under a microscope; neither can the compensation of the farmer be perceived under a microscope.
I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place, but I hope that his representative will convey to him my strong appeal, that something ought to be done to give compensation for the things to which I have referred. It is all right to prescribe a 15-mile area and bottle up a man's business entirely, so that he cannot buy a beast or go out of the area, and the markets are stopped and his trade is stopped, it may be, for three months or six months. What is he to do? You give him the bare cost of the stock at the time they are killed, and then he has to depend upon the valuer. There are good valuers and bad valuers; there are competent and incompetent valuers, and he has to run the risk of that. Whatever the decision of the valuer may be, he has to accept it, and in regard to other things there is no compensation of any sort or kind. As regards the policy of slaughter, from the evidence that I have been able to get together there seem to me to be two opinions among the farming community, and the line of demarcation seems to be that if a man is more a dealer than a farmer he is in favour of slaughter, but if he is more a farmer than a dealer he is in favour of isolation and treatment.
Living, as we do, in these days of scientific enlightenment, one can hardly believe that it is impossible to find a remedy for this disease. Therefore, I want to put in a word on behalf of the farmers whom I have the honour to represent, and to ask the Minister of Agriculture to take into consideration the compensation which ought to be paid. If it is it the interest of the community, in the interest of the nation, to destroy these men's goods and stock, then some compensation ought to be paid for them. We heard a good deal last Friday about the compensation that ought to be paid for licences being taken away, but here you are taking away the living of these men,
and that is a far more worthy case for compensation than the other. In regard to the general matter, I feel sure we shall not grumble at anything that the Minister of Agriculture may ask the House of Commons to grant. It is a matter of supreme importance, when we take into consideration the statement of the Minister to-day, that, during this present outbreak, 89,000 head of cattle and 40,000 sheep have been destroyed. That huge amount of splendid human food has been absolutely destroyed. It is not only the farmer who suffers; the nation suffers. Consequently, we say to the Minister of Agriculture: "Go on with your work. If it is possible to get a bayonet, or something equally strong and sharp, to get the scientists to work to find out a remedy for this disease, get it done without regard to cost." The large amount of beef and mutton that has already been destroyed is a loss to the nation; it increases the cost of food because it brings about a scarcity, and there is also the tendency to reduce the milk supply of the country, which is the children's food. On those grounds I urge the Minister of Agriculture to take into consideration the full question of compensating the farmers for all their loss, and not for a part of it.

Captain TERRELL: I do not intend to follow quite the same course as the hon. Member who has just spoken. One might have thought, from one part of his speech, that, instead of being a supporter of the Government, he was one of its opponents. I hope and trust that before long he will come over on to this side of the House, and then I am sure his searching and caustic remarks will have much more effect. I should like to join with other Members in congratulating the Minister of Agriculture on the very clear and lucid statement which he made to the Committee. I only wish it were possible for us on this side of the House always to congratulate that Minister. If it were, I should have had much pleasure in doing so at Question Time this afternoon. I have no doubt, however, that, if he does ultimately deliver the goods, and produces an agricultural policy which will assist this industry, he will vary readily come to be looked upon as the fair-haired boy of the family, and we shall all shower compliments upon him,
I desire to support the Minister in order to assist him to secure the assent of the House of Commons to the Financial Resolution under discussion. I do so because I am convinced that, in the first place, it is absolutely necessary, in fairness to the people in the industry who have had to suffer such heavy financial losses in this present serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The Minister, in the course of his statement, said that he estimated the cost of the present unfortunate outbreak at £3,250,000. I do not think that that is a great deal when one considers the fact that, if the Ministry had not taken steps to destroy the cattle affected, the loss might have been very many times that amount. It is rather interesting to recall the fact that this outbreak is the worst that this country has experienced for, I believe, over 30 years. The Diseases of Animals Bill was introduced, I think, in 1892, and, throughout the 31 financial years since that date, the sum paid in compensation has never before exceeded £1,000,000. Of course, I know quite well that, directly there is an outbreak on anything like a large scale, all sorts of critics are ready to discuss the methods adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture for dealing with it. I am not going to dive into a controversy of that kind, but I am quite prepared to accept the policy of slaughter as a correct one, because, in the first place, it is on record that, throughout the period of 31 years which I have mentioned, where the policy of slaughter has been adopted the outbreak has in every single case been stamped out Again, the policy of slaughter, as against that of isolation, is supported by the National Farmers' Union, which, after all, is a very important organisation, having something like 100,000 farmers as its members. Then, again, that policy is agreed to by the farmers who are unfortunate enough to have outbreaks on their farms. In other countries there is a good deal of difference of opinion. The Minister for Agriculture told us of the cost of the policy of isolation in France. I understood him to say that the policy of isolation costs France £5,000,000 annually. I do not think that is quite accurate. I believe it did cost that amount for two years, but recently they had a serious outbreak, and I do not think he means to indicate that that is the annual cost. Again, it is interesting to
see what happens in Holland. Some years ago they were in favour of the policy of slaughter, and two or three years ago a serious outbreak took place there. They carried through the policy of slaughter for some considerable time until the expenditure reached £500,000, and then they began to get a little panicky, and they reverted to the policy of isolation, and it is on record that they have endured the very serious loss of £2,000,000. I am convinced that Great Britain is more unsuitable for isolation than the Continent, as here sheep stock preponderate, and these cannot be successfully isolated because they move about in very large numbers, in fact in thousands, and they go on to common pasture land, and therefore it is a totally different state of affairs in this country from that which exists on the Continent.
Owing to this serious outbreak, a good deal of attention has been paid to foot-and-mouth disease in the Press, and I have noticed that some papers have practically treated this sum of money as a sort of special grant for assistance to agriculturists. It is, in a certain way, a grant for assistance, but we must not forget that it is compensation to which they are legitimately entitled, because, after all, they are only receiving this money for stock which they have lost themselves. Farmers in this country are often hit pretty badly as compared with the rest of the country. What other trade is there, for instance, which has all its stock destroyed. where prohibition comes in for a considerable period and dues not allow any fresh stock, where its expert staff necessarily gets scattered in the case of an outbreak such as we, have now, and where again the movement of the stock is so restricted? I hope the Minister for Agriculture will not delay in settling the claims which are being made against his Department for stock which has had to be destroyed. Already there are a good many complaints at the delay. I appreciate the fact that that is not the fault of the Ministry, but if this grant is passed I hope they will not delay in paying out the money to the people who are entitled to it. I should like to ask if all this money goes to the farmers or whether the farm labourers are entitled to any part of it. Is there any
way by which the Ministry has control over the money once it is paid to the farmers? Because the last speaker told us that in Cheshire there were several hundred agricultural labourers thrown out of work owing to this outbreak, and if that be true in one county it must be true in all parts of the country, and I am going to ask the Minister whether or no it is possible to see that some of these benefits which will ultimately be paid to the farmers will be passed on to the agricultural labourers who have been thrown out of work owing to this very serious outbreak.

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON: There is generally a sort of rule in this House that Whips are to be seen and not heard, but in view of the fact that I represent one of the greatest dairy constituencies in England, and that my constituency has, I think, suffered from this outbreak more than any other, I hope the Committee will forgive me if I make a few remarks and ask for a little information. I do not believe anyone realises who has not lived in Cheshire, as I have done, the awful agricultural condition of that county. The House dislikes personal statements, but I think it likes information at first hand. I happen to own a small property just under 3,000 acres. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much more do you want?"] I said "small," because it is small compared with the property that surrounds it. On that 3,000 acres there are some comparatively large farms, and on the whole of them not one tenant possesses a single cow or pig. May I give another example? I live in the centre of a large dairy industry surrounded by nothing but grass farms, hut I cannot to-day buy milk in Cheshire for my own household. I can get a little from one of my small tenants for an invalid sister and an old servant, but as regards my house we are drinking the awful stuff we used to drink in France I support very strongly the contention of my right hon Friend, who suggested that this thing should only be done for a year and that we should not make provision for a second year. It seems to me more in keeping with the traditions and the constitution of the House, and more practicable, that if money is wanted in the future the Government of the day should come and ask for it, if, unhappily. we have future outbreaks.
The Minister stated that the restrictions would shortly be removed. Of course, one knows they will not he removed until after outbreaks have terminated, but I should like to know how soon after outbreaks have terminated farmers will be able to re-stock? I should also like to ask what is the opinion of the officials of the Ministry as regards herds which have been isolated—I mean as regards their condition—because in Cheshire it is impossible to form an opinion? You meet a man who is in favour of slaughter, and he tells you all the herds are in a shocking state, with their hoofs dropping off; and you meet a man who is in favour of isolation, and he tells you they are absolutely all right and giving more milk than ever they did before. I was exceedingly glad to hear that we are to have more money, as I understand, spent in research. I am sure money spent in that way is money well spent. As regards the other investigation, I think perhaps it would have been better if Members had been put on that Committee of Investigation, as regards slaughter and its wisdom, who have not previously expressed such pronounced views as some of those Members have. An hon. Member opposite spoke of the losses which farmers and those connected with the land are undergoing. I have even heard people speak as if farmers are in some way benefiting by it. I should like the House, once for all, to drop the word "compensation." It is riot compensation. The Ministry buy the stock of the farmer at valuation. You cannot call that compensation. The farmers and indire[...]tly the landowners are seriously affected. In my own case I shall make some reduction of rents next May to those of my tenants whose stock have suffered from the disease. The farmer must lose an immense amount of money through this outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He will lose in several ways. In the first place, we must remember that for three months his business is closed down, and he does not make any profits of any sort. He will, I am afraid, when he comes to re-stock, have to pay a considerably higher price for his cattle than he got for those slaughtered. In my district so many thousands of cattle have been destroyed that the price, naturally, will go up. In addition to that, many of the farmers
have hogs of turnips and mangolds which have cost a great amount of money and labour, and they will be useless now in many cases, and will not in their hogs. Marigolds and turnips become squashy in May and June, if not before then. That is absolutely a. dead loss to the farmer. Therefore, I hope we shall drop talk about compensation, because in nearly every case the farmer must inevitably lose considerably through this outbreak. In some counties—I do not think it will be quite so bad in my part of Cheshire, because we go in for a certain amount of market gardening—the labourers will suffer severely. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will answer the questions which I have addressed to him. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture upon having made such a clear statement.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I beg to move, to leave out the words "either of" ["either of the financial years "].
I am old enough, or almost old enough, to remember the time when whenever a farmer went into the market and bought cattle, he expected to find that the cattle he bought would, have foot-and-mouth disease, and he adopted, and every farmer adopted, a plan which was very effective. If it was summer time, he put the cattle that he had bought into a field and dressed their feet with Stockholm tar, and their mouths with salt, and left them. If it was in the winter, he put the cattle into the yard and used the same treatment, and left them. The cattle recovered. The loss was less than one per cent. only one-half or three-quarters per cent. Therefore, there is not the least doubt that this disease can be cured. As time went on, as the milk supply became more important, as the loss of cows in milk was infinitely greater than the loss of lean stock, as the growth in pedigree herds increased, and our export of pedigree cattle, became a most valuable trade, the losses sustained by continually having foot-and-mouth disease were such that it became more profitable to stamp out the disease than to suffer the loss and the restrictions caused by isolation and the treatment of the cattle. Therefore, the Act of 1894 was passed, which authorised the Minister of Agriculture to adopt the policy of slaughter for foot-and-mouth disease, as well as a number of other diseases.
What worries me about this thing is that the policy of slaughter succeeded steadily and steadily as years went on, and the policy has been adopted ever since, but it must be borne in mind the reasons made slaughter preferable to isolation or any attempt at cure. That went on, and was so effective under the then officials of the Board of Agriculture that for a number of years, and up to two or three years ago, the actual cost of carrying out this policy was about £9,000 a year—a mere bagatelle. What I want to know from the Minister of Agriculture is this: How is it that his officials and the Officials of his predecessor are now failing to keep this disease in check? There is no suggestion that I know of that the disease is more virulent. On the contrary, as far as we know, and as far as any evidence I have seen goes, it is just of the same character as it always has been, and I differ entirely from the words of encomium that have been used of the Ministry in regard to their efforts to stamp out this disease, not only on the present occasion, but on the occasion of the last serious outbreak in 1922. They did their best, but what. I am anxious to see, and what I press the Minister to give us, is some thorough investigation as to the means that have been adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture during this last outbreak since last August in stamping out the disease and in getting control of it, more particularly in the earlier months.
I have heard, and anybody who mixes up in agriculture will have heard, all sorts of stories as to the delay on the part of the Ministry. It may possibly be and very likely is the fact that owing to the sudden rush that came upon the Ministry, and for which they were unprepared, some of the delays may have been impossible to avoid. On all hands we are told of cattle, and some of us have seen cattle, after they had been slaughtered. lying unburied cattle with this disease upon them, lying for days, even up to a week, I have heard, before they have been dealt with men who have been employed as slaughterers going about from one farm to another, without supervision or inspection persons being allowed to go on to these farms while the disease was rampant, and going on to other farms. We have heard reports of that kind. What are we now offered after this terrible experience,
when damage amounting to £3,000,000 has been incurred in the value alone of cattle that have been destroyed? We are offered a Committee of four to inquire. I have nothing to say against members of that Committee, I should be glad to see them on a Committee, but every one of the four sat on the Committee that was appointed to investigate the doings of the Ministry in 1922, when, if my memory serves me, they made a Report that the Ministry had done everything that was possible at that time. The nation which is finding this money, and the farmer who are suffering under this scourge and under this treatment by the Ministry, have the right to demand that this Committee should be enlarged, that fresh blood should be brought on to it to assist the present members, so that we may have all the questions that arise approached from an entirely fresh point of view.
If that view commends itself to reasonable persons, I should like to know whether the Committee will allow this Money Resolution to go through in its present form. What is the Minister attempting to do? He is attempting to get from the Committee a Vote not only of this huge sum of £,000,000, which has to be paid for losses already incurred, but he is getting a Money Resolution on which to found his Bill, which will provide him with means without coming here and without this House having an opportunity to question the action of his Ministry, not only for this year but the whole of the next financial year I cannot understand why the Resolution is framed in this way or why these large powers are being sought. Under the Act of the money that could be devoted from Parliamentary funds to make good the value of the animals that are destroyed was £140,000. If we pass a Money Resolution to do away with that for one year, that will enable the whole of the financial business for this year to be cleared up, and will enable the Vote to be taken for the £3,000,000 which is asked for, and which is amply sufficient for this disastrous business for the time being. I would be no party to allow the House of Commons to lose control of this matter of cattle disease, and the money which we have to pay for it and the way in which the Diseases of Animals Act is being worked, more par-
tieularly with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, and with that view I move the Amendment to the Resolution.

Major WHELER: I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment. I do so because not for one moment do I Want to hold up in any way the money which we know is essential to those [...]iho have suffered because of this serious disease, through the loss of their herds, but because, as has been said by the Mover, it is essential that in a matter of this sort we should have an opportunity of reviewing the whole situation from time to time as occasion arises. The course which is proposed by the Minister is an unusual one. It is proposed to free him from having to speak on this subject for perhaps two years. This is essentially wrong, bearing in mind the serious situation which exists to-day because of this terrible disease. It is not only those who have received compensation, as it is called, for animals which have been destroyed who have suffered, but it is the whole community in the radius which is made around the affected area who suffer. As one who has had a dairy farm not far from an infected area, I know that on one occasion, although not a single animal on my farm was affected, there was an extraordinary hindrance in carrying on my dairy farm, and the House knows the loss which must ensue from this sort of thing to a whole agricultural community for which no compensation is given. That being so, it is more essential than ever that we should keep this control in the hands of the House of Commons arid that we should have an opportunity of reviewing the situation not once or twice but frequently if we find it desirable.
I think that the situation is very serious. I would ask the Minister whether in the case of some of those isolated outbreaks the Department have got some idea as to how those outbreaks arose, and whether they came from straw or something of that sort because in certain places there are suspicions which may be ill-founded that there are some bad motives at work causing this disease, and, unfortunately, many instances are quoted. In one of the papers in the north—I have not got it with me, but the right hon. Gentleman may know something about it—it is stated that an owner of pigs received a parcel with two pigs feet. He thought that it was only a joke and did not bother about
it. According to the report in the paper he threw these pigs feet into his yard. Very soon afterwards his pigs came into contact with this, and there was an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on that pig breeders premises. I do not know whether that is true or not but I have seen it in the paper.

Mr. HARDIE: Where were they posted from?

Major WHELER: Is any effort being made to find out where they were sent from? I understand that in all these cases the animals are to be burned. How, therefore, does anybody get hold of pig's feet from an infected pig and post them to some other district, thereby causing damage as in this instance? Are there any suspicious cases known in which evil persons may be endeavouring to spread this disease—I do not know why, but we can never explain the motives of some people. Are there any suspicions of such cases, and, if so, are the Ministry looking into these cases, and trying to find out the cause, especially when they discover isolated outbreaks occurring in districts in which there has been no outbreak before? We had three different outbreaks in one place which had been isolated entirely from any place where outbreaks had occurred. We should clear up the suspicion which exists in the minds of many people, that there is something wrong and that some of these cases have been caused by evil-minded persons. That is a suspicious which many people have, and if the Ministry have any doubts on this matter I hope that they will explain them to us, because everybody in this House wants to stop that sort of thing going on. On the surface it seems to he a clear case of malicious intent, and if there is any truth in that view we ought to know. I ask the Ministry to reconsider their decision about the two years, not because we want to hamper them at all, or to stop money that is most essential for those who have suffered these losses, but because we consider that it is entirely inadvisable for the House to relinquish control for a period of two years.

Mr. HARDIE: In listening to this Debate I have been struck by one or two points, particularly the references to methods adopted for isolation. During the month of December last I lived for
two weeks on a farm that was just outside what was called an infected area. On this side of the infected area there was a stock of 5,000 Cheviots, and these were permitted to go right up to the fence.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the general question on this Amendment, which raises only the very narrow point whether provision should be made for the present financial year only or include the next. financial year?

The CHAIRMAN: I was about to request the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Amendment

Mr. HARDIE: I was referring to what was said in support of the Amendment. On the question of money we have to deal with inspection. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment said something about pigs' feet.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Amendment now under discussion.

Mr. HARDIE: I suggest that I have a right to speak about the way in which the money shall be spent, and that, of course, includes inspection. When we have heard an expert who is a breeder of cattle, for instance, the layman has surely a right. to come in to protect the consumer? What I wish to speak about is the protection of the consumer against unsound meat.

The CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment before the Committee, and it is in order to discuss that Amendment only.

Mr. HARDIE: Then I will wait until the Amendment has been disposed of.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): Some explanation should be given regarding the points covered by the Amendment. Later on I may be permitted to speak on other points raised during the debate. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. We are treating this question from the standpoint of anticipation that this outbreak will continue until the next financial year. We are merely taking powers to deal with compensation which will have to be given after 31st March. If the Resolution is not
carried in its present form it will mean that another Bill will have to be brought before the House in order to make payments, though those payments will really arise out of the present outbreak.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Next year?

Mr. SMITH: Yes. I would emphasise the desirability of the Ministry being placed in a position to meet any claims that may be made for compensation in connection with the latter part of the outbreak, as well as in cases that have occurred up to the present. This is really a facility to enable the Ministry to meet claims that will occur at a later date and to obviate the necessity of bringing in a fresh Bill.

Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not accepted the Amendment, because what the Government is proposing is not strictly in accordance with the principles of Parliamentary control. I can show in a very few words that it is extremely desirable that the principle of Parliamentary control should he maintained in all cases, and particularly in this case. The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that unless the Resolution is carried as printed, the Ministry will not have sufficient funds during the next financial year to pay compensation and to deal with the outbreak. Surely, my hon. Friend will not contend that that is the case. He knows that the Ministry of Agriculture has not been hampered in the matter of funds for dealing with the present outbreak. Therefore, the question of hampering the Ministry does not arise. If the Amendment had in any degree the effect of tying the hands of the Ministry in dealing with this appalling epidemic, I am certain that my hon. Friend would not have moved it, and I certainly would not support it. All that my hon. Friend is trying to do by the Amendment is to secure Parliamentary control of expenditure. It is exceedingly important that the House should invariably insist that money voted in a year should be spent only in that year, and that money required for the following year should be voted in the following year.
We should not vote large sums years ahead, in the manner of the German Navy Law and other laws under which foreign countries finance their expenditure. That has never been the principle of this
House, and the only way in which we can secure efficient financial control is to insist that Supply should be limited strictly to the current financial year. On that principle, I submit, the whole financial control of this House is based. A really important issue is at stake. I am Sure the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that an essential element in successfully combating this outbreak is that the Ministry should enjoy complete public confidence in the steps they are taking. Unless they have the confidence not only of the agricultural community but of the whole country, they will be severely handicapped in taking the drastic steps which they are forced to take. I warn my hon. Friends that in what has been described as the less progressive section of farmers, there is considerable suspicion and misgiving as to the very drastic steps the Ministry has already been compelled to take. I will give an instance. Only a few days back a small farmer told me that he had had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on his farm in the 'seventies, and cured it by putting tar on the cows' feet and giving them beer to drink. He said they all got. well, and he could not see why—

Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is the Noble Lord in order in discussing the cure of foot-and-mouth disease on this Amendment?

Viscount WOLMER: I am not doing so. If my hon. Friend will do me the honour of listening to me, he will see that I am merely giving an instance of the supreme necessity—

Mr. PRINGLE: Of temperance.

Viscount WOLMER: —of securing public confidence in the steps the Ministry is taking, by frank and free discussion in this House. If sections of farmers are inclined to take the view I have just indicated, it is absolutely necessary that the Ministry should have the general opinion of the farming community behind it in the steps which are being taken. It is advisable that this matter should be brought up in this House every year as long as the Ministry feels compelled to take these steps, and that the Minister, whoever he may be, should lay before Parliament the reasons for the course he is taking, so that criticisms may come from every quarter of the House, and suggestions may be made. It is only by
such means that there can be full publicity and a full ventilation of the facts, and it is only by such means that the confidence and support can be secured of those men with whom the Ministry is dealing very hardly. We must remember that in many cases the actions of the Ministry have brought those men to something approaching ruin. I hope the Government will see their way to meet the Mover of the Amendment in some manner. I, personally, having listened from those benches opposite to the oratory of the Labour party when they were on this side, expect to find in them upholders of the privileges of the House of Commons. I hope the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) who sits now in the seat formerly occupied by Lord Banbury and who fills Lord Banbury's place—even to the elegant manner inn which he raises his top hat—will discharge the task which Lord Banbury once discharged, and will support us in our demand that the usual constitutional practice should be followed in this case.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. ACLAND: On this Amendment I think the Committee should have a little more light from the Front Government Bench. I tried to follow, and I think I did follow, what the Parliamentary Secretary said, but it did not appear to me to agree in the least with the interpretation of the Noble Lord who has just spoken. The Noble Lord's point was that we were voting money now, for next year. I do not understand that we are doing anything of the sort, but I hope before we come to a decision the Minister him self will clear up the matter. On this question the House have to take a considerable number of stages this year, and enter into a considerable number of discussions. We have this Debate to-day; there will be the Report Stage of the Resolution; then we shall have a Bill founded on the Resolution, and, finally, a Supplementary Estimate, which brings the whole question up again, and for the first time deals with the total expenditure for this financial year. If what the Government are now asking for is going to take the matter out of the control of the House, so that there will be no chance of further debate on what, unfortunately, I fear we can already foresee, namely, residuary expenditure on this work
falling into the next financial year, then I think the House, with all respect to the Government, would be unwilling to abandon its control. If, however, as I imagine, the only effect of this Resolution and its consequential stages will be to make a further Bill unnecessary at this time next year—while making it necessary for the Government, at some convenient time, to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate, if the expenses, as we fear may he the case, exceed £140,000—then it seems to me the Resolution may be agreed to Perhaps the Minister himself will clear up two points—first, shall we have it as a Supplementary Estimate, and second, shall we have it as a Supplementary Estimate whether it exceeds £140,000 or not? If we are bound, in spite of passing this Resolution, to have the matter before us as a Supplementary Estimate, so that the House will not lose control, then I think the matter assumes another form. The House does not want to lose control, but provided it is assured of control, I do not think it will insist upon having all these various stages of procedure gone through again this time next year in connection with this same outbreak.

Mr. BUXTON: I assure the Committee that in the proposals we are making there is no desire that the House should lose control. My right hon. Friend who has just spoken is perfectly correct in his description of what we are doing this evening. We are going through an elaborate procedure in order to get money to pay the farmers who have already been waiting for weeks. Control will not be lost if hon. Members allow the Resolution to go through as it stands. It leads up to a Bill, and under that Bill no money at all can be granted without a Vote of the House. I can definitely undertake that, if the occasion should arise for snore money to be paid next year, we should come to the House to ask for that money, and the Debate of to-day, which presumably will clear up the foot-and-mouth disease question, would take place in similar fashion. As to my right hon. Friend's question in regard to a Supplementary Estimate, it would be necessary, if the amount required exceeded the statutory limit under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. For anything in excess, therefore, of the £140,000, we should have to come to the House. I can definitely give that assur-
ance, and, under the circumstances, I hope my hoe and learned Friend may see that his Amendment is not necessary.

Mr. PRINGLE: There are one or two matters which I am afraid my right hon. Friend has not made sufficiently clear. This Resolution contemplates provision for two years. Under these circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture, now ready for presentation to Parliament, do not contemplate provision for the next year of the total amount under this Resolution, because, if the Estimates which are to he presented to Parliament, the main Estimates, provide for the total amount which may he paid under this Resolution, then we are not going to have a Supplementary Estimate, and the means of control mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman will not be available. Obviously, they are in a position now, and have been for some time, to estimate for the total amount contemplated under this Resolution. If so, the probability is that the Department will have placed this in the Estimates. Therefore, there will he no Supplementary Estimates, and consequently no means of control, as suggested.
There is another point. The right hon. Gentleman has appointed a Committee to investigate the disease, a fact which shows, for one thing, that the present state of knowledge of his Department and of the experts advieing it is not adequate, and that some further research is necessary in regard to the exceptional experience through which the country has been passing in relation to this disease. It is, therefore, important that the House should preserve all means of control. We have no security that. there will be a Supplementary Estimate, and it is possible, therefore, that the main Estimate for the Ministry of Agriculture in this matter may go through under the Guillotine, and the House will be robbed of any opportunity of discussing any new departures which may commend themselves to the Ministry in consequence of the investigations of the Committee. I think, therefore, the Committee will rant a little more adequate answer than has been given by the Government before it decides to reject the Amendment.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I shall support the Amendment, and I hope it will
not be withdrawn unless and until it is made abundantly clear that we do not lose control of these financial matters in the forthcoming year. Not only are we in this House concerned in this matter, but the local authorities throughout the country are concerned, and their local budgets will also be affected. In saying that, I would like to draw attention to the White Paper which has been issued in connection with this financial Resolution. I am afraid one cannot congratulate those who are responsible for the drafting of this White Paper. It is almost more difficult and more complicated to deal with, I think, than the disease itself, and I would like to urge that, if it be found necessary in future to issue a White Paper, it should be made longer if that is necessary to make it intelligible to the ordinary reader of thiskind of literature. I should like to point out, in support of the Amendment, that a five years' average is being taken, and that that average is being based, not on normal, but on abnormal and exceptional years. If you are to take a period of time, you should either take five normal years, or else you should take a much longer period, such as 10 years, for which averages would he more likely to work out fairly and reasonably. The question raised in this grant reaches much further than appears to be the case. It touches the question of Estate Duty grants, and—

The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member confine himself to the Amendment?

Sir D. NEWTON: I was endeavouring to give an illustration of the ramifications of the Amendment and of this proposal, but if I am not allowed to touch on the other questions, such as research, which are closely connected with this matter, I will close by saying that I congratulate the Department on the way in which it has tackled this outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Slaughter is a barbarous and a cruel policy, and there cannot be a single Member of this House who does not wish to see it done away with, but—

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Amendment before the Committee.

Sir D. NEWTON: Perhaps, Sir, you will be able to give me an opportunity later of dealing with that point. At the same time, I should like to support the
Amendment, because I feel that it is essential that this House should keep and continue to maintain a tight grip on financial questions of this kind annually, and that they should not be allowed to run from one year over to the next.

Mr. E. WOOD: I very much hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister of Agriculture have not said their last word about their view of this Amendment. As I understand it, the position is quite simple. Either the right hon. Gentleman will want the extra money for this existing outbreak, which, in his anticipation, will be prolonged into the next financial year, or he will not. If he does want the money, I suggest to him that there is nothing unreasonable in his having to come to this House in regular form for authority to take the money in the next financial year. He himself, indeed, sees nothing unreasonable in that, in that I understand he is prepared to give an assurance that if and when that necessity arises, he will conic to the House in some form or other, and apparently tell them what he is doing. If he is prepared to do that, wherein lies the difficulty in coining to the House in regular form, by way of Financial Resolution, and, if needs be, of a Bill?
There is no desire, as far as I know, in any quarter to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman or to make his administration difficult. The only point upon which I fail to understand his present position is, why, if that be his intention, he finds himself unable to follow the general constitutional forms of the House, but rather invites them to establish a precedent by giving the Ministry carte blanche for two years, when, admittedly, power for one year is all that he immediately wants, and when he has an assurance from all parts of the House that if the necessity arises they will meet him with equal generosity if he comes again. I hope, therefore, that he will be prepared to reconsider his attitude towards this Amendment. There was great force in what fell from the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle). On the question of Supplementary Estimates, I think the right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) is more simple than any of his colleagues have hitherto supposed him to be, if he is able to pin his entire faith in financial matters on the security of a Supplementary Esti-
mate. As the hon. Member for Penistone said, it may well be that no Supplementary Estimate is necessary, but, if it be necessary, the right hon. Member for Tiverton knows perfectly well that the opportunities provided by a Supplementary Estimate may be a very insecure peg on which to hang a full review of Government policy. Therefore, if my hon. and learned Friend proceeds to a Division on this question, I shall most certainly support him; but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to reconsider the matter.

Mr. BUXTON: If I may be allowed a word, the Committee no doubt will appreciate the anxiety which animates the breasts of some hon. Members opposite as to what machinations may lie behind a Labour Government.

Mr. PRINGLE: Any of them. All are

Mr. BUXTON: The proposal is quite a simple one, to avoid the necessity of spending considerable time during five days while the actual Vote would come under the control of the House. The point is not very material if the House is prepared to give the time, and, as it is not in the least a point of principle, I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:
Leave out the word "years" ["financial years ending"], and insert instead thereof the word "year.
Leave out the words "and the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-five."—[Sir H. Cautley.]

Question, as amended, again proposed.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: I entirely object to this form of legislation. This is the first money resolution we have had, as far as I am aware, in this Parliament, and it is proposed to remove a limitation in the Act of 1894, which asserted the right of Parliament to control the expenditure of the Executive. Millions may be spent, and there is nobody to object. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. F. Martin) spoke eloquently in favour of compensating somebody, who, as I understand, under the present law is not entitled to compensation at all. I want to
find out what the Board of Agriculture proposes to do. When a Scotsman comes to ask me for money I think it is quite time to ask what he is after. The hon. Member now wants the Government to pay on account of some arrangement between the local authority and the owner of a herd. I ask the Government to remember what the Prime Minister said the other night about economy. We shall only secure it by Parliament keeping control. Unless we do so, the way money disappears is extraordinary. The Government is only in office now, but one of their first acts, I suppose, when they get both office and power will be the Capital Levy. Let us go on meanwhile as good business men, and keep the expenditure in order.
Therefore, I wholly object to this limitation being removed. Luckily, now it is being limited to one year. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give me some assistance. I am one of the stupid Members of this House; I make no apology for asking for an explanation. The Minister told us, if I recollect rightly, that the expenditure estimated up to the present time approximated £3,000,000, or a little over. Reference was made to a quarter of a million. I do not understand what connection that had with the £3,000,000. What provisions are being made for this year, And what is to be carried over to the following year? Where is the rest coming from? Who is going to pay? Are the local authorities to pay, or is it to he thrown over to next year? How is it proposed to meet this liability? If we are told how it is proposed to meet this liability, and what the liability is to be, I should propose to amend this Resolution by inserting in it some sum. I do not see why you should have this immense overdraft. I do not like anybody having blank cheques. I would not trust the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) with a blank cheque for anything in this world. The next worst person to trust would be the Government. I want to know what we are doing. Do the present Government desire not to increase expenditure by Supplementary Estimates expenditure since they have come into office? There may he some-in it. I should like to know. What has been happening? There has been isolation. That sounds all right if you send somebody to an isolation hospital. What does it mean on the land, in grass fields,
and to adjoining owners? I want to know whether that herd was isolated after the disease had broken out. That is a very serious point.
Hon. Members opposite understand nothing about agriculture. If there had been no disease in that herd, and they were isolated with disease all round them in the neighbourhood, it seems to show that we have slaughtered wantonly and to a great waste of money. I want to know that the Board of Agriculture were not so stupid as that derisive laughter I heard just now. Will the representative of the Board of Agriculture tell us what has been the effect of isolation? I have heard a great deal to-night about the policy of the Board of Agriculture. It is delightful to know it has a policy. I understand its policy is slaughter. It is quite likely to be a policy of ignorance. In other words, is the reason why the Board of Agriculture slaughtered those animals, to our great cost when we are short of money, that they know absolutely nothing about the disease. It seems to he so. The President of the Board of Agriculture says no microscope can discover the bacillus. That seems to suggest that it does not exist. Is it that you slaughter because you do not know? It looks to me very mach like it. Do you not think it would be well to try something else to see whether you could not isolate a whole district and let them get well and see what would happen? Many of the farmers, I have been told, did ask the Board to allow them to have isolating districts and not to slaughter their cattle. It may be, after all, that the farmers know as much about it as the Labour party. If this could be made plain it would be useful to the Committee before we vote, and remove irritation. How is the money to he applied? Who makes those valuations? Are we really compensating a man whose cattle has already been struck? I can understand compensating a man whose cattle are not yet diseased, and are slaughtered, but when the disease has taken an animal, at any rate, I hope compensation is not on the basis that it was a hull that would take first prize at the Shorthorn show next year, or something of that kind. I want to understand precisely what you are doing. Make it clear to the Committee that you know what you are doing yourselves. That is so
important. I shall certainly divide against this Resolution. All you are asking is to remove a limitation which a man who sat in the House of Commons in 1894 recognised as strictly Parliamentary procedure and inserted in the Act. It is just as dangerous as the doctrine of the Capital Levy.

Mr. LOVERSEED: Are we discussing the Capital Levy or cattle?

The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing the Capital Levy.

Sir G. HOHLER: It was an illustration of my argument. To give this money to this Government or any Government without limitation is just as dangerous as the doctrine of the Capital Levy. I am exceedingly obliged to you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LOVERSEED: May I ask one or two questions with relation to this matter? I have friends who reside in Cheshire who have had their cattle destroyed. They were advised by the Minister to have their cattle slaughtered or otherwise they would have to take the sole risk of what happened later. Is the Minister of Agriculture quite sure that the one way out is by slaughter. I understand that in regard to one particular noble gentleman, the Duke of Westminster, who had a. pedigree herd of shorthorns, that in his case the Ministry agreed that he should isolate the cattle. There arc other tenant farmers who have herds of Shorthorn pedigree cattle in the same county who would have liked also to have their cattle isolated in the same way, but on the advice of the Ministry they consented to have their cattle slaughtered. I agree with what was said by an hon. Member opposite with relation to the way cattle had been slaughtered, and afterwards left on the ground for several days. A relative of mine who lives in the county of Cheshire had 30 beasts killed because it was reported that two of these had foot-and-mouth disease. He informs me that these beasts were allowed to lie on the ground for four or five days without anything being done. The person who slaughtered these beasts went from one farm to another. My friend is under the impression that the slaughterer must be carrying disease from one part to another.
I am in touch with a great many farmers throughout the country, and particularly throughout my own county and they tell me that 40 years ago similar outbreaks in the county of Suffolk occurred, and the policy of isolation was carried cut as a cure for the disease. They were able to get over the difficulty in those times with isolation. There is a very strong feeling—they may not be expert farmers in the eyes of some people—but there is a very strong feeling among the rank and file of the farmers throughout the country that the policy of slaughtering is not the best policy, and that the difficulties could be got over by isolation. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who comes from a neighbouring county, that he might very well in this connection accept the suggestion that was made, that the Committee of Inquiry might this time be changed, and that a different view of the matter be obtained. I do suggest that the total amount of £3,000,000 which has been paid for slaughtering cattle makes it a very costly business, whether, as a matter of fact, there are not serious differences of opinion in regard to this matter, and whether more consideration might not he given to the matter of isolation.

Viscount WOLMER: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken in regard to the main question of policy, and as to the slaughtering or otherwise of the animals concerned. This is a particular matter in which the Government and this House must rely upon the best expert advice that can be got. Nor will I attempt to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Hohler). I leave that for the Government to deal with. But I should like in passing, if I may say so, to observe that I entirely disagree with him in respect of the particular complaint that he has made in regard to the form of this Resolution. He complains that another sum has not been inserted instead of £140,000. I quite agree with him that it is a sound principle that the sum, wherever possible, should be named, but I would respectfully point out to him that we are here dealing with a great emergency, and that it is not within the power of the Minister of Agriculture or anybody else to say what sum may be
necessary. Therefore it does not appear to me to be reasonable to insist in this particular case that the. Ministry of Agriculture should name the sum which it should be empowered to pay. They are entitled to have a blank cheque in this matter.
Let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he has just made. I can assure him we on this side of the House appreciate very much that evidence of the way in which he desires to meet the House. Secondly, I would express regret that in his very interesting and full speech ho did not pay that tribute that, I am sure, he feels of the wonderful pluck and loyalty with which the farmers of the country have stood by the Ministry of Agriculture and endeavoured to carry out the requirements which have been made. When one realises the absolute ruin that this epidemic has meant to many men, many a man who has worked his way up from the position of an agricultural labourer to that of a small farmer owning a small herd of cattle, I think nothing grander has ever been seen than the way in which the small men, just like the big men, have done everything they could to assist the Ministry and the Government, even though it meant their own ruin.
That leads me to a question which I shall be very much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary to touch upon in his reply. I should like to know on exactly what basis the compensation is paid. This is the sort of point that I have in mind—and it has occurred in many cases in the recent epidemic. You have one farm with a man owning a herd of bullocks. They have to be slaughtered. Their value can be assessed, and fair compensation, no doubt, paid. In the next farm you have a man who has a herd of dairy cows. What is the exact basis on which you compensate him? You must pay him for the value of his cows. But you have not compensated him in anything like the same degree as the man with the herd of bullocks. Not only in the second case is the herd of dairy cows lost, but the man, unfortunately, has lost his business, the whole of the revenue that he is getting for the milk, the goodwill of the business, and his customers. He will not be able to use the farm buildings or the farmhouse to keep his cattle in, or for another herd when he can afford to buy one, several months
hence. When he tries to start in the dairy business again four months later, say, after the slaughter, he may find the whole of his good will and the whole of his customers gone. How exactly does the Ministry of Agriculture deal with a case of that sort I have heard nearly the whole of the Debate and I have heard nothing on that point. Certainly the Minister did not touch upon it. Again, should say to the Government and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gillingham that although I quite agree that the House scrutinised previously every penny—I agree that we must so scrutinise it—but I hope in dealing with this outbreak that something will not be saved at the expense of the farmer. After all, these precautions are being taken in the interests of the whole community. The principle has been conceded that compensation ought to be paid. As my hon. Friend said, you will facilitate your task and the work of the Ministry if the compensation is such that there is no avoidable unfairness about it. I hope it is in that spirit that the Minister of Agriculture is regarding this work of compensation.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: It is very interesting to notice in this Debate how hon. Gentlemen opposite take such a great interest in agriculture from the point, of view of compensation for dairy herds. The Noble Lord who has just spoken appears to have forgotten when he was a member of the last Government that a colleague of mine put a question to the representative of the Board of Agriculture asking whether the proposal for compensation would extend to those who suffered the loss of dairy cattle through this dreadful disease. The question was also asked whether credit facilities would be given to enable them to restock their farms with cattle. The answer given to my hon. Friend by the representative of the Board of Agriculture in the last Goy, ernment was, that they were paid full compensation. I then asked a question whether the compensation applied to dairy herds, and I am pleased to hear now from members of the Opposition that the Tory party do not agree that a dairy farmer is properly compensated by simply being paid the carcase value for herds which are destroyed.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: I speak as one who is entirely in favour of slaughter. I
understand that this question is one which ranges round the very controversial subject of slaughter or not slaughter. I recognise that there are arguments, and very strong ones, against slaughter from the sentimental point of view and from a reasonable point of view. I am in favour of slaughter, and I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture for his very clear statement this afternoon. We who represent, or try to represent, agricultural interests are up against this very difficult problem, as to whether it is possible to make British agriculture a paying concern. Only two or three days ago we heard a statement made by the Prime Minister, and another made at the end of last week oy the Minister of Agriculture, and from them we realise the future difficulties of British agriculture. I am one of those who consider that one of the means by which it may be possible in the future to make British agriculture a paying concern is by developing all possible systems of intensified agricultural processes. I submit that there is no more intensified agricultural process than that of breeding pedigree animals. This country is the home of pedigree animals of all description. It is recognised throughout the whole world that in England we have the power of breeding the best pedigree animals, and if that is the ease, then it is essential for the welfare of British agriculture that our stocks and our animals should have a clean bill of health, and that can only be obtained by a. continuance of the process which we all dislike, and that is slaughter.
Until some means are available by which we can get that clean bill of health without slaughter, then it will be necessary for us to continue that policy. I was very pleased to hear from the Minister of Agriculture that he attached very great importance to further scientific investigation into this disease, for it has occurred not only to me but to every Member of this House, that it may be possible by this investigation of the disease that in the future the animals of this country may be inoculated against disease, and then slaughter will not be necessary. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, who is obtaining or is anxious to obtain to-night support for this Resolution for the purpose of compensating those whose animals have been slaughtered, to be very generous in his treatment of the
farmers who have to be compensated. I want to suggest that the farmers are not compensated for these pedigree stocks on which they have invested much skill and which are the products of many years of hard work. When herds are completely destroyed the work of many years of the farmer is destroyed also, and, therefore, I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should be generous in his compensation. I also want to ask him to be generous in his compensation to the owners of milking cows, herds of which have been brought together after many years' work, and when they are destroyed the farmer is not compensated by merely receiving payment for the animals, because he may have totally lost his livelihood by the destruction of the herd. It is because I feel that this Resolution, as proposed by the Minister of Agriculture, is in the interests of British agriculture that I heartily support it.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to draw attention to what has been referred to as the scientific investigation. The fact that lived on a farm for a fortnight last December dews not constitute my claim to speak on this subject, although some people consider themselves qualified to talk about agriculture if they have only seen a farm. With regard to scientific investigation in the areas which were affected in East Kilbride, I may say that if you want a really scientific investigation you must have real isolation. If you have an area with a stream running through it, you must have a wide path circulating round the entire area, and you must sprinkle it with some very inflammable material and set it alight.

Dr. CHAPPLE: What about the birds?

10.0 P.M.

Mr. HARDIE: I will deal with the birds in a minute. When you get that path burnt, there is only one possible danger and that is in the case of the mole, because he can travel to the other side of the line underneath. That is one method by which you can isolate any affected area. You have also to isolate the dogs, and prevent the crossing of roads by cattle. We have been told the story of the farmer who received a parcel of pigs' feet which were intended to infect his farm. That is an old story—I heard it 10 years ago—and
I do wish hon. Members would think well before bringing up matters of that kind. There is the question of the consumer. This question of the herds has something to do with the question of our food supply. We are told that this scientific investigation is going to do much more than has been accomplished in the last t wo or three years, but we have no guarantee of that. What occurs in cases of swine fever? The pig breeder, directly he notices a jumping about among his animals, is aware that they are suffering from the disease, and as he gets no compensation he immediately proceeds to kill off his stock and destroy evidence of the disease. To-day such animals are being broughtt daily into the markets of our cities and sold for consumption by our population. I want the Minister to be specially particular on this point, that some date ought to be given as to the first signs of disease in the area, and as to the last killing. If it is desired to put this matter on a scientific basis, there must be some period fixed.

Mr. LAMB: As representing a division which has suffered very heavily from this terrible disease, and also living adjacent to Cheshire—and 1 believe no county has suffered as badly as Cheshire—I should like to say one or two words on this subject. Reference was made by the last speaker to the question of birds. I believe that if we take this matter seriously—and it is one which should he taken seriously, not in the interest; of the farmer only, but in the interest of the community and the food supply of the community as a whole—I believe that birds arc certainly one source of great danger in the carrying of the disease from one farm to another, especially in the case of farms where the system of feeding the cattle in the fields is followed. We all know that birds will follow the cattle to the troughs where, in the natural course of things, there is the greatest amount of infection, and will carry away on their feet the infection to other farms, and thereby spread the disease. I do not wish to go into the question whether slaughter or isolation is the right policy, but my own opinion, and I hold it very strongly, is that slaughter is the only policy which is going to give us satisfactory results. It is the only policy
carried out thoroughly abroad which has been attended by success, and those countries abroad which have not gone in for the policy of slaughter are the countries which are suffering most from the disease, and which, I believe, are very largely the sources of the contamination which has come to this country.
It is not the policy of slaughter, but the great difficulty in carrying out the policy at the commencement. It is quite true that the Ministry had not an adequate staff with which to deal with a large outbreak of the nature of the present one, but I would ask hon. Members whether we, as Members of the House of Commons, should not have been the first to complain if the Ministry had kept, as a standing army of officials, such a number as was adequate to deal with an outbreak of this magnitude? We should have been the first to complain, and, consequently, we ought, in all honesty, to say that we believe the Ministry has done all that it possibly could in the first stages with the staff that it had, and undoubtedly it was during the first stages that the great spread took place in this country. The other policy, that of isolation, is one which personally I do not believe could possibly be carried out in this country. In the first place, while we talk about isolation hospitals and about isolating streets and the people who live in streets, that is a very different thing from this, and all policies and all remedies have to be utilised in relation to the conditions which exist in the industry to which they are to be applied. To-day we have a tremendous amount of road transport. It is greater than ever it was before, and I believe it will increase; and that, again, is a very great difficulty in the way of isolating a farm and keeping it free from infection from other sources.
I do not think we can with any great advantage discuss to-night this matter of policy as between slaughter and isolation, in view of the fact, which pleased me very greatly, that the Ministry have stated definitely that a Committee has been set up to consider the matter. I think it will he much more profitable to leave it until the Committee reports. I should like, however, to obtain some further information from the Minister with regard to the compensation which is to be paid and
what is to be included as compensation. I realise as much as anyone else, and possibly more, because I am an agriculturist and in the midst of the industry, that it is impossible for the Ministry to corn pensate up to the full damage and injury which the industry has received. It would not be competent for them to do so. The industry is so varied and so wide, and, moreover, as was stated by one hon. Member, the loss is not confined to those men who, unfortunately, have the outbreak on their farms. It goes much further. It affects the whole of the industry, and, that being so, it will be seen how wide is the necessity for compensation if it is to be adequate. I regret very much the expression used, I believe, by the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Captain Terrell), who spoke "the benefits of compensation." It is not a benefit; it is not really compensation. It is a question of the Ministry, in the interests of the community as a whole, purchasing the stock from the farmers for the purpose of destroying it.
If it is found to be impossible for the Ministry to include in this compensation all that I believe they think they ought to include, I hope they will consider some form of loans at a cheap rate of interest—cheaper than can be obtained from the banks—to enable these men to restock their farms. The first valuations, made quite correctly and honestly by the valuers, were, naturally, the values of the stock at that time, but we can quite realise that when the whole of the valuable dairy herds of a district like Cheshire have been destroyed—and there are wide areas now with not a bovine animal upon them—that when these animals have been destroyed in such large numbers, the value of that particular class of stock has naturally gone up very considerably. Those men will have to restock their farms at the present values, and the values which they received in compensation in the early stages are absolutely inadequate to enable them to restock on anything like a reasonable scale with the hope of making their farms successful. I trust that full and favourable consideration will be given by the Ministry to the question of making loans to these men for this purpose.
I hope, also, that some consideration will he given to the men. The farmers, having suffered a loss which cannot be computed, and for which compensation cannot he asked, have continued for a
long while to maintain men employed upon their farms, putting them to do work that, while of some benefit, is not of very great benefit to the farm and is not actually in itself bringing in a return. They are incurring that further loss out of sympathy with the men with whom they have worked. They recognise that they have a claim upon them, and they have accepted the obligation. The Ministry have, when and so far as possible, employed these men to dig and assist in carrying out the operations of slaughter that were necessary on the farm, but that has not been sufficient, and, after a district has been cleared, but is not free for purposes of restocking, that class of work has disappeared, and it has been impossible for the men to find employment. It is still impossible for the farmers to continue to find them employment, and I sincerely hope some of this will be given to these men in the great difficulties in which they find themselves.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I thought the. Debate would have been brought to a conclusion some four or five hours ago. The Committee generally agrees that compensation, or payment in some, form, should be given to the farmers, and whilst the Members on various sides of the House were in agreement that payment must be made, somehow or other they have found ways and means of continuing the Debate for four hours, though at the outset they were agreed. The Labour Government has been in office for something like a month. This slaughter policy has been carried on for the past eight months, and the Government which recently went out of office not only determined the policy that should be pursued, but also the amount of compensation to be paid and how it should be determined, and it is most remarkable to me that, after having carried on the policy of slaughter on the advice of their experts for so long and having determined how the compensation should be paid, members of the late Government now come to the Labour Government and tell them what they ought to do. It is rather too late in the day to be telling the Labour party, who are at present the Government, what ought to have been done perhaps some eight months ago. The facts as we know them are that cattle have been slaughtered on the instruction of the Government that
recently went oat, a financial obligation has been incurred, and whether it is the best policy to slaughter the cattle or not is perhaps a matter for speculation. But they are now dead, and the farmers are in need of this compensation, or payment, or whatever you care to term it.
There is one side of the question which perhaps ought to have been occupying the attention of the Committee more than any other over and above the financial obligation which has been incurred, and that is the side that affects the workers who have been thrown out of work. They do not come within the meaning of unemployrnent benefit, and they have had to do for themselves what the Government in the past has failed to do for them. It is true the Ministry has taken some steps to organise suitable work for them, particularly in Cheshire. Work has been found there by the county council and the authorities have responded nobly and they have made it possible for those who have been thrown out of work to have suitable work found, and not in one single case have the agricultural workers made application for Poor Law relief. But again the Past Government did little or nothing at all towards making provision for these people, and in view of the Minister's statement that he is prepared to make arrangements to meet existing financial obligations and also to ask the Government to set aside a fairly large sum for research for the purpose of tracing this elusive germ, if possible, and preventing such wholesale slaughter as has characterised the last eight months, I think at least the Committee not only ought to have assented to the Resolution but ought to have complimented the Minister on his foresight in having conceived the idea of spending money to trace this disease to its origin, and possibly eliminate it in future. The legal expert who, I believe, represents Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) made various overtures to the Minister in seeking information. One was prompted to interject that we might be able to solve this problem by selecting a legal Committee. He told members of the Labour party that they knew nothing about agriculture, and it seems to me if he forgot all he knew about it he would be little or no worse off, for he would not have entered into this Debate after it had been going for some 4½ hours and then put several questions
bearing upon answers which had been previously given, and upon which every Member of the House during the Debate was satisfied. I did not notice the hon. Member in his place prior to his rising to speak. I do not think hon. Members ought to be absent for hours on end and then to come here and to put questions the answers to which have already been given. He wanted to know from the Minister what was the policy of slaughter and what was the policy of isolation? The present Minister has been in office for a month and he has, at least, made a conscientious statement to satisfy hon. Members who have been sitting here. He has attacked the problem as best he could and, with the aid of his officials, he has acquainted himself with the problem inside and out, and has made adequate arrangements whereby the present obligations can be met and suitable arrangements made to examine this question for the future. The Committee ought not to hesitate in passing this Motion, allowing the Minister to meet existing obligations and to see what can be done in the shape of research.

Major WHELER: On a point of Order. Is this a reply on behalf of the Minister or is it not?

Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member is showing his capacity as a future Minister.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member opposite must know that there was little or nothing from the other side which needs reply. Speeches have been made demanding information which hon. Members have already in their possession, and they have been made with the idea, possibly, of getting the Minister to give more to the farmers and the landowners than they are likely to get. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Minister is not likely to concede that. He is meeting the obligations contracted by the late Government. As to the future, I hope that what money he has to spare will be expended in research and not in slaughter.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with the many questions that have been raised. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood) put one or two questions of substance and upon which the Committee would be glad to have information. The first question he asked was in regard
to the £250,000 to be paid out of the local Taxation Account. I am advised that the amount payable is limited to a maximum of £250,000. That was a decision of the last Government. The precise amount will depend upon the actual amount that is in the Fund.

Mr. WOOD: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that he appreciates entirely the point which I had in mind. What I asked was whether the sum would be the same in the forthcoming financial year as in this financial year. As he is aware, the sum of £250,000 has been arrived at by a calculation of the average of the Estate Duty grant, and so on. If the Estate Duty varied in the corning financial year would the sum be the same?

Mr. SMITH: Provisions for the next financial year are being drafted as a result of the Amendment which has been moved and accepted by the Committee, and I do not think that it would be proper for me now to go further into that matter. The right hon. Gentleman also asked in regard to the efficiency of the work of disinfection and other details connected with the policy of slaughter. I would remind the Committee that this outbreak, and the number of cases which occurred within a very short period, created a real difficulty so far as the Ministry and its officials were concerned. The point has been raised also in debate, as to whether a better equipment and a larger staff might not be provided in order to deal with a question of this character. In regard to that, all the Ministry have felt ought to be undertaken in that respect is to keep in existence a sort of skeleton organisation, which would be capable of developing during such periods of outbreak as we have passed through. It is very difficult to maintain a standing number of officials to deal with something which in past years has been largely speculative. That being the case, when we get such a large succession of outbreaks as occurred during the past year it is obvious that there will be instances which are due entirely to the circumstances and to the rapidity of the outbreak.
A question was also asked as regards the more extensive use of disinfectants. This is a matter which will be dealt with by the Committee which the Ministry has
appointed. One or two points have been raised in connection with the appointment of that Committee. The question was asked, "Why are the members of the Committee that investigated the outbreak in 1922 the members of the present Committee?" It was thought, having regard to the other arrangements that have been made to deal with the question from a scientific point of view, that what was wanted, so far as this Committee is concerned, was just an examination of the experience gained in connection with this outbreak, to see how far present regulations in connection with the slaughter policy are effective, whether the spread of the disease has been due to any failures in the regulations themselves, or whether possibly it may be due to the nonobservance of the regulations. Therefore, the inquiry, so far as this Committee is concerned, will be largely of that character, and not an examination of the whole question such as took place in 1922, and it was thought better that the members who then sat upon this Committee should be those who had gained knowledge and experience of investigation in 1922, and this will be really supplementary to the inquiry that then took place. That is the explanation of why the Committee was constituted in its present form. Any point of failure on the part of those who represent the Ministry in dealing with this outbreak might with great profit be submitted to that Committee, so that they could examine it in detail and find out, how far they can deal with it. Any point that my right hon. Friend opposite may have in his mind in that respect the Committee will be only too glad to receive and examine, and, if necessary, to make fresh or more stringent regulations.
The right hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Acland) referred to the great ravages of the disease in Cheshire. Any Member of this Committee who has ally knowledge of the circumstances in Cheshire will feel very deeply for the farmers in that county because of the trouble through which they have passed. It is quite true, as the Minister of Agriculture stated, that the percentage of the cattle of the country that have been destroyed during the outbreak is only very small, but when that figure is examined from the standpoint of Cheshire the percentage is very high indeed; in fact nearly one-third of the cattle in that county, or in an area of it,
have had to be destroyed. Anything that may be said as an expression of sympathy towards those who have been concerned, and any suggestion that can be made to indicate further help, will be readily appreciated. The right hon. Member for Tiverton also asked when we changed from slaughter to isolation. That is not a very easy question to answer. Everything depends upon the circumstances in particular cases. Generally speaking, the policy has been to slaughter, but there has always been a power, which has been exercised, perhaps, to a limited extent, to adopt a policy of isolation.
The policy of isolation, I am advised, has been used only in regard to very valuable pedigree stock, where the value of the herds has been a very important factor. That, however, is not the only guiding reason. Generally speaking, where pedigree herds are kept the conditions on the farm lend themselves better to the policy of isolation. It may be true to say that if all farms were well equipped with buildings and were carried on under the same conditions as are the farms where pedigree herds are kept—I will not say that it would be possible to develop a policy of isolation more than it has been developed hitherto, but certainly it would be easier to give that policy extended operation. In reply to some criticisms which have been made outside the House, let me say that the policy of isolation has not been put into operation merely because the stock was pedigree stock, nor merely because it belonged to a member of the aristocracy, but because of the further fact that the conditions on a farm were such as made it possible to adopt isolation with greater advantage than would otherwise be the case.
The right hon. Gentleman also made the suggestion that there should be international conferences on this matter. The Ministry keep in close touch with other countries in regard to this subject. The disease is by no means confined to this country. Nearly all the countries of Europe have to face the same circumstances as ourselves, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Ministry are in touch with the scientists of other countries in order that they may get possession of any information which may accrue as a result of research and which may help in dealing with this matter. Regarding the right hon. Gentleman's
suggestion as to experiments, it is a very difficult thing to conduct experiments. One of the great difficulties in this country is that in order to conduct scientific experiments into foot-and-mouth disease, you must have the disease in existence at the place where the experiments are conducted. That creates possibilities of infection and contagion, and surrounding farmers at once raise a protest against the disease being planted in their midst. It is felt that if an island could be obtained for that purpose, it would be the best course to adopt, but you cannot manufacture an island just when you want one—not even a Labour Government can do that. The difficulty is to find some place suitable for investigations of the kind suggested.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Captain Fitzroy) put a question as to certain losses which might arise. I think the right hon. Gentleman is already aware that if the Government were to compensate for every form of loss arising out of this disease, the sum asked for now would require to be much in excess of that contained within the ambit of this Resolution. I am advised that the Act which governs this question limits the possibility of compensation to the actual value of the animals destroyed. Another question raised was as to the basis upon which the valuation is made, and the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) quoted the instance of bullocks as against dairy cattle. A valuer of reputation in the area is generally asked to give a valuation. If the animals concerned are bullocks they arc valued as such and their market value is the basis of the valuation, and a farmer is asked to sign an agreement accepting the valuation. The same procedure applies in the case of dairy cattle. They are valued as dairy cows on the basis of their market value apart from any special qualification attaching to them as regards special milk yield.

Viscount WOLMER: Is any consideration given to the loss of good will which the farmer sustains through interference with his business?

Mr. SMITH: No.

Mr. E. BROWN: Nor was there under the last Government.

Mr. SMITH: It may be well again to remind the Committee that this question
is not one which has arisen since the present Government came into office.
The hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) seemed rather to suggest that he was under the impression that all this had arisen in the last four weeks, but I beg to assure him that such is not the case. The first outbreak took place on the 27th August last, and the bulk of the compensation that comes within this Financial Resolution was fixed before the present Government came into office. Perhaps I might further remind him, although he may have difficulty in believing that such a coincidence could take place, that with the coming into office of the Labour Government the number of outbreaks diminished. May I say further, on the question of compensation, that of course this Government, like all other Governments, is bound by the terms of the Act establishing that compensation, and in so far as any other loss is concerned—it applies to the cost of manures turnips, hay (which is very largely wasted because there are no animals to consume it), loss of trade, and all that kind of thing—it does not form a basis upon which any Government is allowed to compensate under the terms of the Act.
The same thing applies in regard to labour, and let me say here that I am indeed gratified to find so many of my hon. Friends opposite expressing a real concern about the labourers on the farms. [HON MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have been in n this House when discussions have taken place on Resolutions similar to this, and I have never before heard this point raised, although possibly that is due to the fact that the size of this outbreak is so much larger than anything that has occurred before. However, in regard to compensation for the labourers, there again the terms of the Act do not permit of any direct compensation being paid to them. Personally, I very much regret it, because there is a very definite loss of earnings by these labourers, and the. agricultural worker, not being covered by unemployment insurance, is at once, put into a position of very great difficulty indeed, as has already been pointed out.
I would like to say that the Ministry have done all they can to help in these cases. They have sent their representative down to the district, and have consulted the local authorities and tried to arrange for these men who have been
displaced, especially in Cheshire, to be absorbed by schemes of work that might have been started in the district. It may interest the Committee to know that the information of the Ministry is to the effect that the amount of destitution that has arisen, in so far as these men are concerned, has not reached the point to have compelled them to seek Poor Law relief. I think that is very largely due to the fact that the farmers have done their best to meet the difficulties, that the Ministry have done their best to utilise this labour in the work that they have to carry out, of burning and burying the carcases afterwards, and that the local authorities also have done their best to give these men work on the roads, or in some similar fashion, which has, at least for the time being, tided them over their difficulty. I can only express the hope that if this Committee or this House should reconsider the provisions of the Act under which compensation is paid in regard to this disease, I am sure that those of us on this side will be only too ready, in conjunction with hon. Friend opposite, to see that the position of the labourer is adequately met.

Captain TERRELL: Is the hon. Gentleman quite emphatic in his statement that the agricultural labourers will not in any way participate in any of this money that is paid out in the nature of compensation?

Mr. SMITH: I do not know exactly what my hon. and gallant Friend means. If he means, are the Ministry entitled to give any compensation to the labourer, the answer is that, under the Act, they are not entitled to do so. The only form of compensation, the only basis of compensation, is what might be termed the commercial value of the animal that is slaughtered. Of course, the suggestion, which I think the hon. Gentleman himself made, that the farmers might, out of the sums they receive, pass some of it on to their labourers, is, of course, entirely a matter for the farmers themselves, and the Ministry have no real standing in the matter. The question has been asked, what is the result of the policy of isolation, and how far has it proved successful in meeting this particular disease? It is very difficult to give any exact information or statistics in this respect. That also applies to the further
point that was raised as to how far the cattle which have suffered from the disease deteriorate. I am advised by the scientific staff at the Ministry that it largely depends on the severity of the disease, and also to which organs of the body the disease has attached itself with greatest virulence. In some cases the loss with regard to the animal itself is very severe, and in others slight. It is difficult to give any figure which would indicate, in a general sense, what the result of the policy of isolation would be so far as the deterioration of the animals themselves is concerned. Of course, the policy of slaughter, as distinct from the policy of isolation, is not adopted merely because it is not possible to treat the disease where that is considered advisable. The policy of slaughter is adopted as the best means of stamping out the disease once it has occurred. It is a question of destroying the virus by the quickest and best method, and the slaughter policy is adopted on that account.
It may be asked whether or not the Ministry is fully persuaded that this policy is the best one to adopt. All I can say in answer to that question is, I du not think there is any responsible body connected with agriculture which does not advocate the slaughter policy. Those who understand the question from the practical standpoint being agreed, it is somewhat difficult for those not connected with the industry seriously to argue against it as the best means of treating the disease. But if this Committee ask further whether we can let the question remain there, all I can say is, as I think the Minister has already indicated, the present Government are not content to let the question remain at that point. Perhaps I may mention here, as has already been explained to the Committee by my right hon. Friend, we are following up the work that was started by the last Government in the matter of scientific research, I think the method adopted has been a most practical and satisfactory one. The late Minister of Agriculture asked the President of the Medical Research Council if he could advise him as to the most suitable person to make a recommendation to the Ministry as to a line of procedure for investigation. Sir Walter Fletcher recommended a gentleman named Leishman, who is connected with
the War Office veterinary staff. He is about to make a report to the Ministry as to how best a scientific investigation could be carried on into this disease.
I think I can say on behalf of the Ministry and the Government that every effort will he made to back up any Committee that is appointed so that they may, to the fullest extent, conduct the closest investigation into this matter with a view to finding out what is the real cause of this disease, and to find some immunising agent which will enable treatment to become so that the policy of slaughter may come to art end. None of us like this policy of slaughter as a method in itself. It is primitive and has many aspects which are unpleasing. At the moment the only alternative is a system of isolation. The Ministry feel that if that were adopted in this country at this moment the disease would sweep through the country as a whole, and the disaster that has overtaken agriculture, as a result of the present outbreak, would be nothing compared to what would happen under existing circumstances. I would emphasise that point by an illustration. If it be true that even by the operation of a policy of slaughter you have this infection spread, as it has done during the last six months; if you have, as in the case of Cheshire, where all the resources of the Ministry have been brought to bear to confine it to a given area, it spread as it has, with a policy of slaughter in operation, what would be the extent of its spread if we adopted isolation. I want to assure the Committee that the Ministry will not be satisfied merely with that policy. On the practical side, through the Committee the Minister has appointed, the closest investigation will be made to see whether destruction cannot be minimised compared with what has taken place in this recent outbreak, and side by side there will be scientific investigation going on by the Committee which will be ultimately appointed. This is a question which is causing the Ministry the greatest amount of concern as it has past Ministries. I can only hope the experience we have gained will be examined with the same advantage in the country and help to the farmers generally. I also hope that the results of the scientific investigation will lead us into a happier state than we happen to be.

Mr. LAMB: Will the hon. Gentleman say something about the loan?

Mr. SMITH: That is a matter to which I am afraid I cannot give any reply. It is a new point and one which will have to be examined. The Ministry fully appreciate the difficulty of the Cheshire farmers. Whether this is a matter that they have power to do at the present moment I would not say offhand.

Mr. LAMB: Before the Report stage?

Mr. SMITH: I think I can promise that the matter will be looked into as soon as possible to see what is possible.

Sir H. BARNSTON: What about the restocking of the farms?

Mr. SMITH: So far as the restocking of the farms is concerned, that, of course, depends entirely on the question of any further outbreak.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I beg to move, after the word "twenty-four" ["nineteen hundred and twenty-four"], to add the words:
Provided that the suspension of the limitation imposed by Section eighteen shall not be held to authorise the expenditure of a sum exceeding three million pounds.
Some of us on these benches think that the powers provided by the Resolution are a bit too wide. The right, hon. Gentleman made use of words as to the removal of the limit with which we so far agree; but we think there ought to be some words put in to provide that the total amount of money to be spent shall be left to the House. With that object I put forward the Amendment.

Captain TERRELL: I beg to support the Amendment. In doing so I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend when he said that we on these benches do not fail in sympathy with the agriculturalists in the position in which they are placed owing to this very serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; we want to make it perfectly clear in supporting this Amendment that we are not doing anything in any way to hurt the agriculturists in their present plight. We put this forward for two reasons; first, we consider that this House is the proper place to control the finances of the country. We, the Conservative party, do not think—

Mr. N. BUXTON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 242.

Division No. 5.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Rentoul, G. S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gretton, Colonel John
Richardson. Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ropner, Major L.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roundel, Colonel R. F.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harland, A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Savery, S. S.


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Smith-Carrington, Neville W.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Sutcliffe, T.


Clayton, G. C.
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jephcott, A. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cope, Major William
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Vaughan Morgan, Col. K. P.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
 Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lamb, J. Q.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lumley, L. R.
Wilson. Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Dixon, Herbert
Lyle, Sir Leonard
Wise, Sir Frederic


Eden, Captain Anthony
McLean, Major A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Ferguson, H.
Moles, Thomas



FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Penny, Frederick George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Mr. G. Balfour and Mr. A. M.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Perring, William George
Samuel.


Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Raine, W.



NOES


Ackroyd, T. R.
Comyns-Carr, A.S.
Hastings, Sir Patrick


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Costello, L. W. J.
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Cove, W. G.
Haycock, A. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Crittall, V. G.
Hayday, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Darbishire, C. W.
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)


Alstead, R.
Dickson, T.
Hillary, A E.


Ammon, Charles George
Dodds, S. R.
Hindle, F.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Duckworth, John
Hirst, G. H.


Ayles, W. H.
Dukes, C.
Hobhouse, A. L.


Baker, W. J.
Duncan, C.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)


Banton, G.
Dunnico, H.
Hoffman, P. C.


Barclay, R. Noton
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie


Barnes, A.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)


Batey, Joseph
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hudson, J. H.


Bann, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Entwistle, C. F.
Isaacs, G. A.


Black, J. W.
Falconer, J.
Jackson, R. F (Ipswich)


Blundell, F. N.
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bondfieid, Margaret
Foot, Isaac
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)


Bonwick, A.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Broad, F. A.
Gillett, George M.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Bromfield, William
Gorman, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Gosling, Harry
Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E)


Brunner, Sir J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Keens, T.


Buchanan, G.
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Kennedy, T.


Buckie, J.
Greenall, T.
Kirkwood, D.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lansbury, George


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Laverack, F. J.


Cape, Thomas
Groves, T.
Law, A.


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Grundy, T. W.
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham. North)


Charleton, H. C.
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Leach, W.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Lee, F.


Clarke, A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lessing, E.


Climie, R.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lindley, F. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Harbord, Arthur
Linfield, F. C.


Ciynes, Rt Hon. John R.
Hardie, George D.
Livingstone, A. M.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Loverseed, J. F.


Collins, Patrick (Walsall)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Lowth, T.


Compton, Joseph
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Lunn, William


McCrae, Sir George
Rea, W. Russell
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


M'Entee, V. L.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Mackinder, W.
Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomson, Waiter T. (Middlesbro, W.)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Ritson, J.
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Or. T. J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O. (W. Bromwich)
Thurtle, E.


Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tillett, Benjamin


March, S.
Robertson, T. A.
Tout, W. J.


Marley, James
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, E.)
Romeril, H. G.
Varley, Frank B.


Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Royce, William Stapleton
Viant, S. P.


Maxton, James
Royle, C.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Middleton, G.
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. G.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Millar, J. D.
Scrymgeour, E.
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Mitchell, R. M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)
scurr, John
Warne, G. H.


Mond, H.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Montague, Frederick
Seely, Rt. Hon. Maj.-Gen. J.E.B.(I.of W.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Morris, R. H.
Sexton. James
Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shepperson. E. W.
Weir, L. M.


Morse, W. E.
Shinwell, Emanuel
Welsh, J. C.


Moulton, Major Fletcher
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Westwood J.


Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)
Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withingtn.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Murray, Robert




Murray, Robert Murrell, Frank
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
White. H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Naylor, T. E.
Smlille, Robert
Whiteley, W,


Nichol, Robert
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Nixon, H.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


O'Grady, Captain James
Snell, Harry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Oliver, George Harold
Spence, R.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)


Owen, Major G.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Paling, W.
Spero, Dr. G. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Stamford, T. W.
Willison, H.


Perry, S. F.
Starmer, Sir Charles
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Phillipps, Vivian
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Windsor, Walter


Potts, John S.
Stranger, Harold
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Pringle, W. M. R.
Sullivan, J.
Woodwork, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Purcell, A. A.
Sunlight, J.
Wright, W.


Raffety, F. W.
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford
Sutton, J. E.



Rathbone, Hugh R.
Tattersall, J. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Raynes, W. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Frederick Hall.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. BUXTON: rose in, his place, and claimed, "That the main Question, as amended, be now put."

Resolved,
That it is expedient that the limitation of one hundred and forty thousand pounds imposed by section eighteen of The Diseases of Animals Act 1894, on the moneys which may he provided by Parliament towards defraying the costs in such section mentioned and ho paid to the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account for Great Britain shall not apply to moneys so provided in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-four.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Burley-in-Wharfedale and the parishes of Menston, Arthington, Pool, and Bramhope, in the rural district of Wharfedale, all in the West
Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924, be approved."—[Mr. Gosling.]

Mr. JAMES HOPE: How many of these Orders is it proposed to take to-night? I understand, and to the best of my recollection it is so, that it has been the custom to take only six or eight at most. It is an unprecedented strain on the digestion of the House to take 31 or 32, as I think there are. As it is contentious business, and each one is debatable, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be content to take an instalment to-night, which, I think, the House would be glad to give.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I shall be glad to get them all Through.

Mr. HOPE: In the first Session of a now Parliament the House really requires some explanation as to the nature and scope of these Orders. May I ask the Minister of Transport to give some explanation?

An HON. MEMBER: Have not some of these schemes been held up while the change of Government has taken place?

Mr. GOSLING: I think the reason for the large number is because a great many of them are in arrears because of the delay for the last month or more, but I do not want unfairly to press the matter. I am in the hands of the Speaker, so far as I know, and if he tells me to stop, I shall do so.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1919, in respect of the urban district of Raunds, the parish of Stanwick and part of the parish of Chelveston-cum-Caldecott, in the rural district of Thrapston, the parishes of Newton Bromswotd, Higham Park, and part of the parish of I rchester, in the rural district of Wellingborough, all in the county of Northampton, and the parishes of Wymington, Podington, Harrold, Odell, Souldrop, Sharnbrook, Bletsoe, Riseley, Knotting, Melchbourne, and Yeldon, in the rural district of Bedford, all in the county of Bedford, which was presented on the lath day of January, 1924, he approved."—[Mr. Gosling.]

Viscount WOLMER: Will the Minister tell the House the reason for these Orders and the circumstances which have made them necessary? I should particularly like to know if there is any opposition in any quarter to the Order, or whether it is a practically agreed Order. If so, when the Motion for the Order was made, why it is necessary to take it now and why it cannot be postponed so that Members can have the opportunity of hearing from their constituents or anyone interested in the Order? So far as I am aware, this has been down on the Order Paper for a very short time. I do not know that it was on the Order Paper last week but at any rate it has not been on the Order Paper for more than a very few days. Therefore, I do not think that the House ought to pass these Orders without some explanation from the Minister responsible as to why they are necessary and the steps which have led up to them.

Mr. GOSLING: There is no opposition that I know of to any of them. If any hon. Member wishes to obstruct them, he must do so.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I think it is quite unfair that the House should be asked at this moment to pass 31 of these Orders.
I have every sympathy, personally, with seeing these Orders put through with the greatest possible speed, as I am interested in Ord rs of this kind. On the other hand, we must have regard to the decencies of procedure rather than merely the personal convenience of people who may be interested in the Order, and if the hon. Gentleman can fall in with the suggestion which has been made from the Front Bench, and the hon. Gentleman will be content to take some reasonable number, and we can feel there is no desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to force an undue number of these Orders on the attention of the House at this late hour. I have no doubt he would be able to get that number of Orders through without, interruption. Short of that, I think it is the duty of hon. Members on this side of the House to force this point of view—that we should have some regard to the number of Orders which are put through on one occasion.

Mr. GOSLING: We have got into arrears. That is not my fault. I would remind hon. Members that we should have been half way through now if they had not obstructed. In the circumstances I am quite content to take ten or a dozen Orders now.

Mr. BALFOUR: Can you say, Mr. Speaker, what number of Orders you propose to take in view of the suggestion of the Minister of Transport?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has suggested that we should confirm 10 or 12 Orders to-night. I take it that hon. Members would be prepared to confirm to Orders.

HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"!

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act,, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Newmill, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in
respect of the urban districts of Gildersome, Hunsworth, Birkenshaw, and Drighlington, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the parishes of Paisley, Eastwood, and Neilston, in the county of Renfrew, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Heysham and parts of the parishes or townships of Slyne-with-Hest and Heaton-with-Oxcliffe, in the rural district of Lancaster, in the county of Lancaster, and for the amendment of the Morecambe Electric Lighting Order, 1897, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the parishes of Dalziel, Cambusnethan, and Carluke, in the county of Lanark, which was presented on the 15th day of January, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the parishes of Bothwell, Old Monkland, New Monkland, and Shotts, in the county of Lanark, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the borough of Port Talbot, in the county of Glamorgan, which was presented on the 15th day of January. 1924, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Finedon, part of the urban district of lithlinghorough, and the parishes of Orlingbury, Little Harrowden, Great Harrowden. Hardwick Wilby, Great Doddington, Wollaston, Strixton, Grendon, Easton Maudit, Bozeat, and part of the parish of Irchester, in the rural district of Wellingborough, all in the county of Northampton, which was presented on the 15th day of January, 1924, be approved."—[Mr. Gosling]

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I ask the Minister of Transport what work has been stopped and how much unemployment will be caused by the obstruction of the Opposition?

Mr. GOSLING: I cannot say what amount of work will have been stopped, but certainly none has been helped on.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes after Eleven o'Clock.